Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE

Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament

Mr. Boswell: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent representations he has received on defence policy from the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Hunter: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent representations he has received on defence policy from the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament; and if he will make a statement.

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Younger): Since last year's summer recess, I have received three letters, four petitions and one questionnaire from representatives of CND regarding aspects of defence policy.
The low level of correspondence from CND reflects, no doubt, the decline in support for that organisation. It is clear that the Government's, and NATO's, policy of defence and detente is the only sure way of achieving peace, and that unilateral disarmament gestures would undermine efforts towards multilateral disarmament.

Mr. Boswell: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will pay CND the courtesies appropriate to its declining membership. Will he ensure that he does not listen too hard to its views, any more than he did on cruise missiles? As a result of his resistance to CND, we now have a multilateral intermediate nuclear forces agreement and we hope to achieve similar mutually beneficial agreements on other weapon systems.

Mr. Younger: I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. Although my disposition is normally to listen to everyone on all subjects, I am very glad that we did not listen to CND because if we had done so we should not have the current arms reductions.

Mr. Hunter: As the debate on CND is one that my right hon. Friend clearly wins, will he undertake to challenge robustly CND's opposition to the modernisation of short-range nuclear weapons because such modernisation may well be necessary to maintain deterrence and to negotiate from a position of strength?

Mr. Younger: Yes. My hon. Friend makes a valid point. As I have said, there may be arguments for having no

weapons at all, although I do not accept them, but in my view there are no arguments for having weapons that are ineffective and out of date.

Ms. Ruddock: Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that he has received from CND a briefing on the competitive strategies doctrine? [Interruption] Yes, a briefing—and I am sure that the Secretary of State has read it. Did the Americans consult him about that doctrine and what are its likely effects on NATO strategy in relation to conventional arms talks?

Mr. Younger: I am grateful to the hon. Lady. I did, indeed, receive a piece of paper stating that it was a briefing on that matter and I found it interesting, as I always do. I do not think that the doctrine has any effect on the conventional arms talks which are a very specific set of talks with very specific objectives. Our objective is to achieve equal ceilings of conventional weapons at much lower levels than they are now. A very good start was made at the Vienna talks yesterday.

Mr. Ian Taylor: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the British Government's success in pursuing a multilateral policy flies in the face of everything that CND has proposed? Does he share my concern that the SLD party—the old Liberals—seems to be riddled with CND members, including the current general secretary of CND, who is on the committee considering defence?

Mr. Younger: My hon. Friend has raised a very interesting point. The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) made some excellent remarks in the Navy debate last week. The only trouble was that they seemed to conflict diametrically with the views of the leader of his party who recently made it clear that he was against all nuclear weapons.

Mr. James Lamond: Does the Secretary of State recall that when he last answered questions in the House he was asked whether he was prepared to match the initiative of President Gorbachev in reducing nuclear weapons, and boasted that he had left President Gorbachev far behind as he had reduced the number of nuclear weapons in Britain by 30 per cent. Why was he pretending to be a unilateralist then but now he is a multilateralist?

Mr. Younger: I am not sure that I come into either of those categories. The point that I made then is equally valid today—that NATO has reduced its nuclear warheads by about 2,400 since 1979 and, as I understand it, Mr. Gorbachev recently announced that the number of Russia's systems has been reduced by about 24, so it seems to me that he has an awful long way to go.

Military Depots (Security)

Mr. Grocott: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has made any assessment of the effect of contractorisatiÖn on the security of military depots.

The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Archie Hamilton): Security is one of a number of factors taken into account in the assessment of proposals to contractorise activities at defence establishments. The subsequent effect of such measures on the security of those establishments is assessed by the commanding officer or head of establishment as part of their constant review of their security arrangements.

Mr. Grocott: Is it not a matter of simple common sense that if long-serving, loyal civil servants in the Ministry of Defence are replaced by short-term contractors, that must involve increased security risks? In view of recent events, does not the Minister owe it to military establishments—I mention in particular COD Donnington in my own constituency—to listen to the overwhelming views of the work force, both civilian and military, and at the very least to put a freeze on existing contractorisation proposals and undertake a thorough, long-standing review before presenting any further plans?

Mr. Hamilton: No, we continue with contractorisation to give us value for money on the defence budget. There is no evidence that contractorisation increases security risks.

Mr. David Nicholson: Is my hon. Friend aware that at this time of IRA threats we shall be grateful for any assurances that he can give about the safety of our military camps? Will he assure the leader of the Liberal party, through his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), that Norton Manor Royal Marine camp in my constituency is safe and does not require the attentions of the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown)?

Mr. Hamilton: We keep the security systems on all our camps constantly under review. I am convinced that the Royal Marines are as capable as anyone of defending their camps.

Procurement Expenditure

Mr. Galbraith: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the relative priority, in terms of procurement expenditure, his Department gives to (a) the British Army of the Rhine and (b) warships for the Royal Navy.

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the relative priority, in terms of procurement expenditure, his Department gives to (a) the British Army of the Rhine and (b) warships for the Royal Navy.

Mr. Archie Hamilton: The balance of expenditure within the defence programme reflects the Government's defence policy as set out in successive statements on the Defence Estimates.

Mr. Galbraith: Does the Minister agree with Lord Carver that Britain should concentrate its commitment on British armed forces on the continent at the expense of the Navy, or does he agree with Sir Peter Stanford that the Navy has already shown its worth and should be given priority? Does the Minister agree that that unholy dispute within the military is the result of concentrating too many of our resources on nuclear weapons at the expense of conventional weapons? Is it not also due to the fact that the Government have neglected to undertake a proper defence review?

Mr. Hamilton: There is no need for a defence review. I agree with Lord Carver who, at the end of his recent lecture, said:
It will not be, as it has never been, a choice for us between a maritime or a continental strategy, but a delicate judgment of how to apportion scarce resources between the two.

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: When Admiral Stanford asks where are the construction orders, how does the Secretary of State answer?

Mr. Hamilton: Construction orders will obviously follow. When it comes to ordering ships, we have not been backward in coming forward, and we have ordered a very large number.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that when allocating resources, whether for the British Army of the Rhine or for the purchase of ships for the Navy, control of the skies must also be considered? Neither Army nor Navy operations can be much good unless we also control the skies. Is it not time that we advised the West German Government that, in controlling the skies, it is essential that our aircraft are permitted to operate at the same altitudes at which they will be required to operate during operational periods—particularly during a war?

Mr. Hamilton: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is sad that the Opposition's question makes mention only of the British Army of the Rhine and of the Royal Navy and does not include the demands of the Royal Air Force, which we take into great consideration when deciding our priorities.

Mr. Brazier: Does my hon. Friend agree that the question is a particularly silly one? There is no more certain way of decoupling Germany from the alliance than to run down our presence on the continent. Equally, there is no easier way of convincing the Americans that we are not fully supporting them than to reduce our forces in the eastern Atlantic. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) pointed out, it is impossible to reduce the capabilities of the British Army, Royal Navy or Royal Air Force without causing political damage, irrespective of any military damage.

Mr. Hamilton: That is absolutely right. If the suggestion behind the original question is that we should run down the Royal Navy to support the Rhine Army one must bear in mind the critical role played by the Royal Navy in guaranteeing our reinforcement in wartime and in its anti-submarine warfare capability.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: Does the Minister understand that the answers that he has given today, the answers that his officials gave to the Select Committee on Defence and, indeed, his answers to the House during the debate on the Royal Navy last week, have done nothing to allay the fear of many hon. Members that the surface fleet's frigates and destroyers are too few to enable the Royal Navy to fulfil its wartime or peacetime responsibilities and functions?

Mr. Hamilton: I think that the problem is that the Opposition refuse to believe that we are maintaining our commitment to about 50 ships. I must repeat what I said in the Navy debate—that I call 49 surface ships "about 50".

Mr. Rogers: Are not the fears expressed by two very senior officers merely a symptom of the fears felt throughout the armed services that insufficient emphasis is placed on our conventional weapons? Will the Minister undertake a defence review so that the fears of those officers can be allayed?

Mr. Hamilton: The only justification for a defence review is when we do not have the resources to meet our


commitments. An extra £20 billion has been spent in real terms since 1979, and there is no shor tage of resources to meet our existing commitments.

Territorial Army

Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent representations he has received about the role of the Territorial Army; and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Michael Neubert): The Ministry of Defence receives a great many representations about the Territorial Army, including its role, from a wide variety of sources. Careful note is taken of all those views. Where appropriate, they are fed into the continuing process of evaluation of the effectiveness of the TA, and the vital part that it plays in the defence of the nation.

Mr. Thurnham: When my hon. Friend is next in the north-west I hope that he will be able to visit the Bolton artillery unit, which has a long association with the town dating back to 1860. He would then appreciate the urgent need for new, larger premises. Will my hon. Friend press the Territorial Army premises unit to find larger premises and to respond more quickly to commercial opportunities as I understand that the unit has £2 million available to spend?

Mr. Neubert: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his invitation to his constituency. He can be assured that North-West TAVR, which is responsible for TA accommodation in the area, is maintaining close contact with the local authority and estate agents in the Bolton district. I am aware of the long association of the Royal Artillery with Bolton. I confirm that we intend to find a site and that funds will be available to construct a suitable permanent centre for 216 air defence battery.

Mr. Duffy: Why did Territorial Army manpower fall off so sharply in 1988?

Mr. Neubert: It is true that we have suffered a small setback in our aim to reach an increased target, but our present level is none the less very much higher than it was when we came into power in 1979, increasing from 60,000 to 73,000. We have plans to attract more recruits and to retain more people in the Territorial Army. We have simplified administration and increased the tax-free bounties, and we have improved training. We have a major advertising campaign under way, which has already enhanced public awareness of the importance of the Territorial Army.

Mr. Conway: As the Territorial Army supplies 50 per cent. of the manpower but takes up less than 4 per cent. of the Army budget, does my hon. Friend agree that it represents extraordinarily good value for the taxpayer? As the birth rate is expected to decline towards the end of the decade, does my hon. Friend agree that the efforts of the employers' support groups in encouraging recruitment among young people will become more and more vital and deserve the congratulations of the House?

Mr. Neubert: Yes, and I readily pay tribute to Tommy Macpherson and the national employment liaison committee and to the efforts that they are making to foster greater awareness among employers and to make more

facilities available for people to serve in the Territorial Army which, as my hon. Friend says, has a vital part to play in peace and in war.

Nuclear Weapons

Dr. Moonie: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last met the Defence Minister of Denmark to discuss modernisation of short-range nuclear weapons.

Mr. George Younger: I last met the Danish Defence Minister when he came to London, at my invitation, on 6 February. We discussed a range of issues of mutual interest, including SNF.

Dr. Moonie: The Minister must be aware that the Danes share the disquiet of the West German Government about our modernisation plans. Will their views be taken fully into account, or will it again be a case of Granny knows best for Europe?

Mr. Younger: It will be for the Danish Government to decide their attitude when NATO comes to discuss the modernisation of the SNF. I spoke to the Danish Minister and it is worth recording that Denmark fully subscribes to NATO's strategy and nuclear deterrence, which is more than I can say for Her Majesty's Opposition.

Sir John Stokes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I recently had the opportunity to visit Denmark, Norway and Iceland to see NATO defences in that area? Is he further aware that while Denmark is a non-nuclear power it is a loyal member of the Alliance and its small forces would give a good account of themselves in the event of war?

Mr. Younger: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those comments. Recently, at the last nuclear planning group meeting, Denmark fully subscribed to the principles contained in the communiqué, which made it clear that it was in full support of NATO strategy.

Mr. Cohen: The Secretary of State says that Denmark fully subscribes to NATO strategy, but does it fully subscribe to the Prime Minister's plans for short-range modernisation in central Europe, as the Germans do not and most of Europe does not?

Mr. Younger: None of those countries has yet been called on to make a decision on the matter. They will all have to decide in due course what their views are, but there is a wide measure of agreement on a number of important principles. They are, first, that if we are to have weapons we must keep them up to date; secondly, that the Lance system will be obsolete by 1995; and, thirdly, that none of us wishes to see a third zero in nuclear weapons in Europe.

Mr. David Martin: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the western nations, including Denmark, would be wise, when listening to what Russia says, to see what that country actually does before abandoning any plans that we may have to modernise short-range nuclear weapons, bearing in mind that Russia has a long way to go not just to abolish chemical weapons but even greatly to reduce its conventional weapons?

Mr. Younger: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. While we warmly welcome the change of climate in the Soviet Union and the willingness to discuss matters that it refused


to discuss for many years, we must wait to see results from the suggestions that the Russians make. As I made clear earlier, from the point of view of reducing weapons, NATO has a much better record than the Soviet Union in having done so already.

Mr. O'Neill: The Secretary of State spoke of Montebello and of how important it was in relation to the reduction of weapons, but there were two elements in Montebello, one being the replacement of weapons. When the right hon. Gentleman speaks to his colleagues in western Europe, will he appreciate that there is no great enthusiasm for the early replacement of many of the systems which it was envisaged in 1983 would have to be replaced because the circumstances in Europe in particular and the world in general have changed considerably since then? Does he further agree that the Prime Minister's hectoring approach to the NATO allies is regarded as offensive and irrelevant in relation to the modernisation of those weapons?

Mr. Younger: The hon. Gentleman is right to remind all concerned that the Montebello decision was not just a decision to reduce nuclear weapons but to replace those that were aging or out of date. The only criterion as to whether weapons should be replaced is whether the existing ones are out of date and no longer usable. That is the position that we must face in relation to those systems which will become out of date soon.

Nuclear Weapons

Mr. Hayes: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what nuclear weapons the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation has scrapped over the past 10 years.

Mr. Younger: Since 1979 some 2,400 nuclear warheads—or some 35 per cent. of the land-based stockpile—have been unilaterally withdrawn from NATO Europe. In addition, under the INF treaty, some 400 deployed land-based nuclear missiles, together with their warheads, will be withdrawn from Europe by the Alliance by June 1991.

Mr. Hayes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that during the last 10 years NATO, rather than the Warsaw pact, has taken nearly all the arms control initiatives? Will he warn some of his wobbly colleagues in the Alliance that when the Soviet Union finally lifts the seventh veil of its arms control striptease something rather nasty may be revealed?

Mr. Younger: I appreciate what my hon. Friend has said. I agree entirely that, in performance, there is simply no contest between NATO, which has managed to reduce its weapons systems while maintaining its security, and the Soviet Union, which until recently has done absolutely nothing in that regard. As to the future, we should be very wise to continue our successful policy of maintaining strong defences and forcing the Soviet Union to the negotiating table. After all, that policy is working.

Mr. Douglas: Will the Secretary of State, instead of looking back over the past 10 years—though it is natural that he should do so—try to look to the next five to 10 years and give us some insight into his views on the START negotiations? At this juncture the Soviet Union and the United States have both made gestures towards

building down to 50 per cent. What meaningful contribution are the Government making to that process by proceeding to develop four Trident boats, all armed with D5s?

Mr. Younger: The START negotiations, on the whole, have been fairly encouraging, and we are fairly confident that, before very long, there will be agreement on a 50 per cent. reduction in the super-powers' strategic systems. That is very remarkable progress. So far as the British deterrent is concerned, everyone involved in negotiations—not least Mr. Gorbachev himself—has made it clear that it is not expected that the British deterrent or, for that matter, the French deterrent, will be included at the current stage. We have always made it clear that if, in the future, there is a major change in the line-up of the super-powers, if there is a 50 per cent. START reduction, if the conventional imbalances can be substantially reduced, and if there is a world ban on chemical weapons, we shall be prepared to see whether we can make a further contribution in respect of our deterrent.

Mr. Barry Field: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the promotion of Lt. General Gromov to his new key position means that, for the first time, NATO troops will face battle-hardened Soviet troops? Does not this make it even more important that NATO should keep its nuclear deterrent—particularly its short-range weapons—intact and modernised?

Mr. Younger: I have no doubt that those factors should all be taken into account. Undoubtedly, the ability of NATO to defend itself is a key factor in persuading all concerned to negotiate a reduction in weapons.

European Fighter Aircraft

Mr. Vaz: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent decisions he has made in respect of procurement of a radar system for the European fighter aircraft.

Mr. Ron Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent decisions he has made in respect of procurement of a radar system for the European fighter aircraft.

Mr. Tim Sainsbury (The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement): No decisions have been taken recently on the radar for EFA.

Mr. Vaz: Will the Minister ensure that any decision that is made on new radar systems for European fighter aircraft will benefit Britain's electronic and radar industry? Does he not agree that the real choice is between a British system and a ravamped version of the old Hughes system? If the latter is chosen, will not that perhaps be the death knell for Britain's radar research base? Will the Minister therefore ensure that a British system is adopted?

Mr. Sainsbury: I suspect that my hon. Friend recognises that it would be wrong for me to prejudge a decision of those who have the job of considering the present competitive bids. Of course, both bidders include British companies.

Mr. Ron Davies: Does the Minister agree that he is under increasing pressure from both German and American interests to accept one of the off-the-shelf


systems that are in use? If that is so, will it not be a severe body blow to the British electronics and radar industry, particularly the radar research base? If the Minister accepts that, exactly what does he intend to do to safeguard this vital British national interest?

Mr. Sainsbury: I do not think that I recognise the competing bids in the description that the hon. Gentleman has given of an off-the-shelf developed system. He will be aware that we are awaiting a recommendation to the NATO European Fighter Management Agency, the international management agency, from Euro-Fighter. It would be wrong for me to anticipate that recommendation. We must wait to hear what it has to say about its assessment of the competing bids.

Mr. Stern: Does my hon. Friend agree, in order to safeguard the EFA project, that the most essential elements of any radar system are that it should work to specification and be available on time? Will those be the primary considerations which will be taken into account in deciding competing bids?

Mr. Sainsbury: As my hon. Friend will be aware, a wide range of issues and aspects of the radar system have to be taken into account in assessing its ability to meet the requirement and its competitiveness. I am sure that all the issues will be properly taken into account. Clearly those that he mentioned are among the primary considerations.

Mr. Mans: When the decision is taken, will my hon. Friend take into account the export potential of EFA and any restrictions that may be imposed upon it by a particular choice?

Mr. Sainsbury: I assure my hon. Friend that export potential is one of the issues which will be taken into account before a decision is made.

Mr. O'Neill: Is the Minister aware that the problems being created over the choice of radar are likely to endanger the whole project? Can he be more fulsome in indicating the true significance of that? While previously we were talking in terms of GEC-Marconi against Ferranti, the danger may now be that a German-backed GEC system, if not chosen, may be the rock on which the whole project founders. Will he confirm that the Government back EFA and will continue to support the British-led technology which lies at the heart of the radar system which many on this side of the House are prepared to support?

Mr. Sainsbury: I think that the hon. Gentleman is well aware that all four collaborating nations entirely support the project. I can also confirm that they all share the stated aim, which is to achieve maximum commonality across the whole programme, including the radar system. That remains the objective. I do not think that I can add anything more about the radar while we are awaiting the recommendation from Euro Fighter to NEFMA. It is frustrating for the House that we have not had the recommendation. I cannot say more. We must be patient until we get the recommendation.

Reciprocal Unilateralism

Mr. Anthony Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent representations he has received advocating a defence policy of reciprocal unilaterism.

Mr. Archie Hamilton: The Ministry of Defence has received no letters on the subject of reciprocal unilaterialism since last year's summer recess. The Government share with our allies a security policy based on strength in defence and readiness for dialogue.

Mr. Coombs: Will my hon. Friend confirm that reciprocal unilateralism is really a transparent sleight of hand by certain Opposition Members to defend the indefensible? Does he also agree that it is an attempt to conceal from the British public Labour party defence policies that are not only profoundly dangerous but that have been regarded as unrealistic by the Soviets themselves, and are proof positive that, far from the Labour party being able to run a defence policy for this country, it could not even run a bath?

Mr. Hamilton: My hon. Friend is right. I can see no difference between reciprocal unilateralism and the policy that the Opposition adopted at the last election which was robustly rejected by the electorate. What we are talking about is the hook on which the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) finds herself—trying to reconcile her former chairmanship of CND with being on the Labour Front Bench at a time when the party is changing its policy.

Ms. Short: Did not the Minister hear the Secretary of State say a few moments ago that NATO had unilaterally got rid of many weapons? The whole world knows that Gorbachev has taken a series of unilateral initiatives. Is it not the case that in so far as we are making progress on disarmament, it has been a process of reciprocal unilateralism?

Mr. Hamilton: I think that the hon. Lady is playing with words. We all know what unilateralism means to the Labour party. Labour supporters would get rid of our independent deterrent without expecting anything in return or, if there was something in return, it would be very minimal. They would leave us with nothing when our enemies would still have considerable nuclear capability.

Mr. Hind: Will my hon. Friend confirm that he is a multilateralist and, unlike 100 opposition Members, he has no plans to join CND? He will, therefore, have no use for a bilateral, unilateral and multilateral nuclear defence policy, whatever that means.

Mr. Hamilton: I certainly confirm that I have no intention of joining CND. It is quite interesting that the whole idea of reciprocal unilateralism was advocated by an American, Mr. Leonard Sullivan. He said, however, that, if the reciprocation did not come through, he believed that nations should go back to rebuilding their nuclear arsenals with up-to-date weapons. I cannot believe that that is what the hon. Lady the Member for Lewisham (Ms. Ruddock) is advocating.

Dr. Thomas: Is the Minister not being completely hypocritical, because the Government have just indicated their endorsement of non-reciprocal unilateral short-range modernisation?

Mr. Hamilton: Hon. Members are continuing to play with words—[Interruption] We have always thought it necessary to keep our weapons up to date, otherwise there would be no point in having them.

Mr. Baldry: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is impossible for the Opposition to reconcile reality with the policies of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament? The more the Opposition try to do so by their various policy somersaults, the more they demonstrate that they are completely unfit to govern this country, to keep our defences and to maintain the peace.

Mr. Hamilton: That is right. I do not believe that anyone in the country will be fooled by the Opposition's performance. Although the Opposition are trying to obscure what they are up to, they will end up leaving people bemused and certainly in no way convinced that they have a reputable policy with which to defend this country.

US National Security Adviser

Mr. Andrew Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to meet General Scowcroft, United States national security adviser, to discuss defence matters.

Mr. Younger: I hope to meet General Scowcroft later in the year to discuss a wide range of matters of mutual interest.

Mr. Smith: When the Secretary of State meets General Scowcroft will one of the issues discussed be the seriousness of the West German Government's decision to postpone any decision on the modernisation of Lance until after their general election in two years' time? In such discussions, will the Secretary of State be taking the view of the Americans, who are forcing the pace on this issue, or that of the West Germans, on whose heads those missiles would fall if they ever had the misfortune to be fired?

Mr. Younger: I do not think that the West German Government have taken any such decision. There is, indeed, full agreement within the coalition of the West German Government that there should be no third zero, that there will need to be modernisation some time and that Lance will be out of date by about 1995. It is up to each Government to decide how they will react to the proposals which will eventually come before NATO. I cannot, of course, answer in advance for what the view of the West German Government may be.

Mr. Brazier: Will my right hon. Friend confirm to General Scowcroft that this Government still regard America as a reliable and faithful ally, unlike many Opposition Members?

Mr. Younger: Of course, it is an essential part of NATO's success that the United States and, indeed, Canada are fully integrated as part of the Western Alliance. That is an important part of the security which we all enjoy.

Mr. Sean Hughes: If General Scowcroft asks whether this Government take seriously the threat of a Warsaw pact short-range missile attack on NATO fixed assets in Germany, will the Secretary of State answer yes or no?

Mr. Younger: I shall reply to the general to any of those questions that he knows, and I know, that we are both members of the same Alliance with exactly the same views

on the strategy of that Alliance. There is no difference between us. That is the answer to all the questions that hon. Gentlemen have asked.

Chemical Weapons

Mr. David Shaw: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the accuracy of Mr. Gorbachev's statement that the Soviet chemical weapons stockpile is no more than 50,000 tonnes.

Mr. Archie Hamilton: The Soviet claim that its stockpile of chemical warfare agents is no larger than 50,000 tonnes has not been backed up by any supporting data. We assess that total Soviet chemical warfare stocks are several times higher.

Mr. Shaw: Does my hon. Friend agree that there was an unfortunate failure in glasnost when a British team visited Shikhany recently? Does he agree that in those circumstances we have to be extremely wary as to whether the Soviet Union is serious in its arms control negotiations?

Mr. Hamilton: That is absolutely right. We have every reason to believe that the facilities at Shikhany have the capability of manufacturing serious quantities of chemical weapons. When our people asked to see the manufacturing facilities they were told that these were commercial, that they would have no interest in looking round them, and they were prevented from doing so. So this certainly was not an example of glasnost.

Mr. Corbyn: In calling for the dismantling of Soviet stocks of chemical weapons, what action will the Minister take towards countries such as Iraq which have used chemical weapons in the recent past? Will he ensure that the maximum possible sanctions are taken against them to show our abhorrence of all chemical weapons wherever they are and by whomsoever they are used?

Mr. Hamilton: We are, of course, looking for a global ban on chemical weapons and verification will be a critical element of this. This must include all countries that are signatories to that global ban. So the whole business of verification is something on which we will concentrate, not only with regard to the Soviet Union.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson-Smith: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the NATO and independent assessment of the chemical weapons stockpile of the Soviet Union is not 50,000 tonnes but 300,000 tonnes? Will he also confirm that it is NATO's objective to have a verifiable assessment of chemical stockpiles both in our country and elsewhere?

Mr. Hamilton: That is absolutely right. Our estimates of Soviet stocks are very much higher than 50,000 tonnes; 50,000 tonnes is the biggest quantity of chemical weapons held by any country in the world anyway, and our estimates are considerably larger than that. Certainly, we shall need to have a much greater exchange of information, visits and so forth, to be in a clearer position to know how much is held by each side.

Mr. Boyes: Including the Soviet Union and the United States of America there are about 20 countries with a chemical weapon capability and the world would undoubtedly be a safer place if there were no chemical weapons at all. Will the Minister assure the House that to


help to achieve this he will do all that he can to encourage the early completion of the treaty on chemical weapons at Geneva, agree to tough verification procedures carried out by the United Nations and encourage stringent economic and trade sanctions against any country that uses chemical weapons? The mass of the people of the United Kingdom want an end to these obscene weapons, and that means more and resolute action by the Government.

Mr. Hamilton: As my right hon. Friend has already said, it is one of our priorities that a global ban treaty should be achieved as quickly as possible. Certainly, everything will be done to get the global ban agreed and the verification for which the hon. Gentleman has asked.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: Bearing in mind the very large stockpiles of chemical weapons held by the Soviet Union and the fact that the United Kingdom unilaterally gave up its chemical warfare capability back in the 1950s, does this not make nonsense of the policies advocated by the CND and others on any kind of unilateralism? Do we not want to go for worldwide disarmament of chemical weapons?

Mr. Hamilton: That is absolutely right. This is an example of unilateral disarmament certainly not working, and it was not reciprocal either.

Nuclear Weapons

Mr. Skinner: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received on Her Majesty's Government policy on the circumstances in which United Kingdom nuclear weapons may be used against (1) a non-nuclear state and (2) another nuclear nation.

Mr. Archie Hamilton: I am not aware of any such representations.

Mr. Skinner: Is not the reason why the Minister is unable to, or will not, answer that question that the Americans will not let him? Is not the truth of the matter that the fingers of George Bush and Daniel Quayle are nearer to Britain's nuclear button than those of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Defence will ever be?

Mr. Hamilton: The question asked was what representations we had received. My answer was that I was not aware of any such representations. The hon. Gentleman knows very well that we have an independent nuclear deterrent and that we have our own control over it.

Courts-martial

Mr. Key: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the average length of time between charges being made and verdicts being delivered in courts-martial.

Mr. Neubert: The length of time elapsing between charges being made and verdicts being delivered varies from case to case. Records are not maintained in a form that would permit accurate calculation of the average time without incurring disproportionate cost.

Mr. Key: Will my hon. Friend look at the efficiency of the Army legal service? Can he say why nine months elapsed between my constituent ex-Warrant Officer

Newbery's cancellation of release and the time he was charged? He was subsequently acquitted but his life was in ruins.

Mr. Neubert: Warrant Officer Newbery was charged not with the theft of £700 but on ten counts of false accounting relating to a period between December 1984 and March 1986. The investigation that preceded the charges being brought required the services of a specialist accountant—a trained royal military police officer. There are few such people and their time is much in demand.
The investigation ultimately resulted in a report of nearly 100 pages, and I am satisfied that there was no undue delay. Once the charges were brought the court martial was set for six or seven weeks later. It was delayed for a further few weeks solely at the request of the defence. Throughout that time, Warrant Officer Newbery remained on full pay, except for one month when he took unpaid leave to attend to his business interests.

Unreliable Equipment

Mr. Ray Powell: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will estimate the annual cost to his Department of unreliable weapons, aircraft and military equipment.

Mr. Sainsbury: We attach very considerable importance to reliability of equipment, which is a key feature of our procurement policy. A broad brush estimate of the cost of appropriate elements of scheduled and unscheduled maintenance for the RAF, and for similar work for the Navy and Army, was given as more than £1 billion in a recent Comptroller and Auditor General's report. As the report recognised, that figure does not indicate the amount that could be saved by better reliability, nor does it take account of the extremely rigorous maintenance policy that we operate in order to maintain the highest standards of safety. However, we believe that the costs of unreliability can be reduced. A number of measures have already been taken to bring about improvements in reliability, and more are in hand.

Mr. Powell: I thank the Minister for that lengthy reply. Is it not true that £1 billion of taxpayers' money a year is wasted? Is it not also true that the fast jets of the RAF are grounded for 50 per cent. of the time, which is a total waste of taxpayers' money? Is it not about time that the Government did something about that?

Mr. Sainsbury: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman thinks that I gave a negative reply and I hope that, on reflection, he will realise that it was positive. I should point out that on a broad assessment of the value of the aircraft that the RAF flies, unscheduled maintenance comes to only 2 per cent. of that cost—the equivalent to spending £120 a year on the maintenance of a Metro.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Ql. Mr. Battle: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 7 March.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. I also attended the closing session of the ozone


layer conference. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further meetings later today. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen.

Mr. Battle: Does the Prime Minister think that the EC was right to refuse to allow her Secretary of State exemption from the legal requirement to provide pure water? Is not the real protector of the environment in Britain proving to be the EC, not the rhetoric of her Government?

The Prime Minister: We are wholly committed to achieving compliance with the EC drinking water directive as soon as is practicable. Obviously, a great deal of capital investment—which Labour cut and we have increased—is involved. For the purpose of accuracy, may I say that we know of no change with the EC from that previously reported? Matters are still under consideration.

Mrs. Roe: Will my right hon. Friend find time today during her busy schedule, to consider the press publicity surrounding the libel court case brought by two of my constituents—Mrs. Warby and Mrs. Chastell—against Tesco in relation to an alleged shoplifting offence in 1984, of which they were acquitted in 1985? Will my right hon. Friend urge the Lord Chancellor to respond swiftly to my letter to him asking him to investigate the case and the associated legislation? There is no doubt that there is grave concern amongst the general public that the people who sought to clear their names are suddenly finding themselves liable to pay substantial sums in costs to the unsuccessful party.

The Prime Minister: I understand my hon. Friend's concern about this case. However, as she knows, we are totally unable to interfere with a judicial decision. As she will be aware, the costs are at the discretion of the courts. The Lord Chancellor will consider the issues raised by this case. My hon. Friend will know that some of the proposals which he put forward in the Green Paper might be of assistance in such a case.

Mr. Kinnock: May I congratulate the Prime Minister on speaking for the whole country on Saturday morning, when she attacked her Secretary of State for the Environment?—[Interruption.] When is the Prime Minister going to sack him?

The Prime Minister: May I advise the right hon. Gentleman to listen to an interview that I gave to Channel 4, in which I pointed out that our Secretary of State for the Environment—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Our?"] My right hon. Friend, ours on this side—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order The Prime Minister is replying.

The Prime Minister: I pointed out that he is one of the people most fitted for the job—whether it be in architecture, art or in the fact that he is a civil engineer, and therefore knows a good deal more about the subject than the Leader of the Opposition. My right hon. Friend has a superb record. I am so grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the chance to point out that my right hon. Friend is absolutely first class in every way.

Mr. Kinnock: Obviously, we are not amused. If the right hon. Gentleman is one of the best Secretaries of State for the Environment that we have ever had, why does the Prime Minister feel it necessary to take charge herself?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is not expected to be amused; he is expected to recognise outstanding talent when he sees it. For his information, I have not taken charge of water privatisation. It is we who have put forward money—[Horn. MEMBERS: "We?"] Yes, we on this side of the House. This Government have poured money into investment in water. It was the Labour party that cut it.

Mr. Gwilym Jones: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the NATO proposals for reductions in conventional forces in Europe which were tabled yesterday by our right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary? Will she wish the Vienna negotiations every success?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I welcome the proposals that were tabled by my right hon. and learned Friend yesterday. They would set equal ceilings for NATO and the Warsaw pact on tanks, artillery and armoured troop carriers. They would require the Warsaw pact to make greater reductions than NATO, because the pact has far higher numbers of these weapons. Even after the unilateral reductions announced by Mr. Gorbachev at the United Nations, the Warsaw pact's superiority will still be of the order of two to one. We shall need to continue to keep weapons—conventional and nuclear—up to date to ensure effective deterrence.

Mr. Callaghan: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 7 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Callaghan: Is the Prime Minister aware that if basic old-age pensions had been uprated in line with earnings since 1979, a single person's pension would now be £48·80 instead of the present £41·15, and a married couple's pension would be £78·15, instead of the present £65·90? Will she therefore instruct the Chancellor, when he produces his Budget speech, to uprate pensions instead of giving away millions of pounds to rich people in tax handouts?

The Prime Minister: In the last uprating that the Labour Government did before 1979, they did not uprate pensions in line with earnings. It was left to us to do that. Although that Government put the discretion to do so into their legislation, they introduced a national incomes policy which cut earnings and even cut the real wages of many people in the public services. We have done much better, by keeping pensions uprated in line with the retail prices index.

Mr. Nelson: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 7 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Nelson: Following my right hon. Friend's speech to the closing session of the conference on protecting the ozone layer, would it not be an appropriate time for me to add—and I believe that I share this view with other Conservative Members—my congratulations to my right hon. Friend and the Government on taking the initiative in calling and organising the conference? I hope that my hon. Friend recognises that it has attracted a considerably larger commitment of nations to the Montreal protocol


and has also drawn acceptance that there is a shared environmental responsibility among all nations, not just some.

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The conference was extremely successful and surpassed all expectations. It was stimulating and was enjoyed by everyone present. When we began, 33 nations had signed the Montreal protocol. In the course of the conference, 20 other nations agreed to sign it and 14 more, including China, are considering that seriously. Altogether, it was a very successful operation which made it clear that the co-operation and action of all nations and all peoples is required.

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 7 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Griffiths: When does the Prime Minister plan to visit Glasgow Royal infirmary?

The Prime Minister: Not next week and not immediately.

Mr. Evennett: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 7 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Evennett: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Opposition's attempts to make political capital out of the recent rail tragedies are deplorable and will be deplored by the vast majority of people? Does she agree that people should wait for the report of the independent inquiry before making comments on those tragedies?

The Prime Minister: All three recent accidents caused great personal tragedies and great concern to everyone, especially those who work for British Rail. As for trying to find the causes of the accidents, we must await the official inquiries and not attempt, in any way, to postulate the causes. As my hon. Friend knows, I have visited the hospitals in both Clapham and Purley and I very much regret that I shall be unable—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"]—under present plans to visit the third one.

Mr. Ashdown: Does the Prime Minister agree that if we are to build—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Interruptions take up a lot of time.

Mr. Ashdown: Does the Prime Minister agree that if we are to build on the welcome success of the ozone layer conference, worldwide action is needed and that that will require an understanding of the special problems of developing countries in ending the use of CFCs? Will the Prime Minister commit her Government to being equally active in putting together the co-operation of the industrial nations to provide the resources necessary for the Third world countries, especially India and China, so that they can sign the Montreal protocol as soon as possible?

The Prime Minister: I indicated that China is thinking of signing the Montreal protocol. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, at present our own industries are finding more ozone-friendly chemicals. They are either ozone-friendly and less damaging than the present CFCs or ozone-benign and eliminate that particular problem altogether. There are few chemical concerns that sell them, so they will have the main sales. There are some factories in other countries that have started on that production, but I see no reason why the substitute chemicals should cost very much more than the present ones. With regard to our multilateral aid programmes through the World Bank and through Europe, we shall have regard to environmental considerations in deciding our priorities. The same will be true of our bilateral aid programme.

Mr. Patnick: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 7 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Patnick: Will my right hon. Friend welcome the announcement by Guy's hospital that it is considering applying for self-governing status? Will she confirm that self-governing hospitals will remain an integral part of our Health Service?

The Prime Minister: I confirm that self-governing hospitals will remain part of the National Health Service. They are not opting out; they are self-governing within the National Health Service, financed by the taxpayer according to the services that they perform. I believe that under that different system of administration doctors and nurses will have more freedom to harness their skills and dedication and to improve services to patients.

Mr. Michael J. Martin: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Glasgow train accident took place in my constituency? I find it rather sickening that she is not prepared to visit the Glasgow royal infirmary, where the victims of the crash now are, although she has visited other hospitals with the cameras rolling. Surely she should stop ambulance-chasing and get on with doing something for public safety.

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. I have gone to the scene of every accident when it has been possible for me to do so. I was able to go to Piper Alpha, and twice to Lockerbie. I must, however, have regard to my other engagements. I very much regret that on this occasion I have no plans at present to go to Glasgow, but I fully understand the tragedies that have been brought about. As the hon. Gentleman knows, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is on hand to visit patients.

Mr. Riddick: Does my right hon. Friend agree that membership of a trade union should be on a purely voluntary basis? If so, does she think that it is about time that we did away with the iniquitous closed shop?

The Prime Minister: In principle, I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment is considering whether any further legislation is advisable.

Dr. Thomas: Will the Prime Minister join my colleagues and me in condemning the recent escalation in arson attacks on properties in Wales? Will she ensure


that adequate resources are available to the North Wales and other police forces, so that those responsible for these dastardly crimes are apprehended before anyone is killed?

The Prime Minister: I gladly join the hon. Gentleman in condemning those attacks utterly. We shall do all that we can to ensure that the necessary police forces are there.

Train Accident (Bellgrove)

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Paul Channon): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the accident that occurred on ScotRail at Bellgrove in Glasgow yesterday. I understand that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) received his copy of the statement late, for which I apologise.
At about 12.50 yesterday the 12.20 Milngavie to Springburn train collided with the 12.39 Springburn to Milngavie train. A passenger and the driver of one of the trains were killed, and five people with serious injuries were detained in hospital overnight. The two trains collided head-on on the branch line to Springburn near to Bellgrove station. British Rail has not yet completed all its tests of equipment, but stated this morning that all the indications are that the accident, like that at Purley, was caused by human error rather than technical defects.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has visited the scene, as have both my hon. Friend the Minister of State and my hon. Friend the Minister for Home Affairs and the Environment at the Scottish Office. They have already expressed their deepest sympathy to the injured and the bereaved, and our thanks to the local rescue and hospital services who responded so well to the emergency. The House will, I know, want to join me in expressing sympathy to the people of Glasgow.
British Rail is carrying out its own internal inquiry into the circumstances and causes of the accident. An officer from the railway inspectorate attended the scene, and the inspectorate has already started its investigations. I have today appointed Major Anthony King, one of my inspecting officers, to carry out an inquiry into the accident. His inquiry will of course be wholly independent. It will be held in public in Glasgow and the report will be published. I have asked him to report to me as quickly as possible.
I discussed with Sir Robert Reid this morning the problem of trains passing signals at red, to which British Rail and the railway inspectorate have been seeking solutions for some time. BR has had research carried out into the psychology of driver reaction to the automatic warning system and has been looking into technical improvements to make the system more effective. The chairman told me that BR has now authorised a pilot scheme to develop and test a system of automatic train protection which will work with United Kingdom signalling systems.
Meanwhile, the immediate priority must be for the inquiries into each of the three recent accidents to be completed quickly so that prompt action may be taken.

Mr. David Marshall: I also wish to express my deepest sympathy to those injured in this tragic disaster and to the families, friends and relatives of those who have been killed. I thank the Secretary of State for the statement, and I add my thanks to the emergency services and those local people who assisted in this very difficult rescue operation.
However, I ask the Secretary of State to confirm the report in the Daily Telegraph today that this accident happened on a single track of line which had been coverted from a dual track as an economy measure a few years ago.

If that is the case, will he take immediate action to restore all section of single track line to dual track immediately as being in the best interests of public safety?

Mr. Channon: I am grateful for what the hon. Member says. As it happens, this accident occurred on the double line, not the single line. [Interruption.] My hon. Friends must not be unfair to the hon. Member; he made a very relevant point. Of course, single track lines, when properly operated, and when the signals work properly—as I hope they did in this case—and are properly obeyed, should be no more dangerous than double track, and they are widely used on British Rail.

Mr. Michael Martin: I. too, convey my sympathies to the bereaved relatives of the driver and passenger; indeed my sympathies go to a near neighbour of mine who was trapped in the wreckage for more than four hours.
No hon. Member wants a tragedy in his constituency, but it is our job to try to highlight problems which can be avoided. The Minister should take on board the fact that only a few miles further up the track are the railway workshops where his Government took away 3,000 workers, reducing the work force to 300. Also, a depot has been asking for voluntary redundancies. The Government are seeking to get safety on the cheap on the railways, and. it is time that the Minister considered doing more about safety. That means getting a work force that is capable of doing the work, not seeking voluntary redundancies and shedding labour.

Mr. Channon: I can well understand the hon. Members's feelings, this appalling disaster having occurred near his constituency and that of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall), and his concern for those injured and killed in the accident. The House understands that he feels strongly about the matter.
What the hon.Gentleman says about the Springburn works, although an important point, must be irrelevant to the cause of this accident. However, I must refute very strongly what he said about our trying to get safety on the cheap. Safety remains a top priority for British Rail. I have discussed the matter with Sir Robert Reid on many occasions, and he has confirmecl to me that it remains a top priority. I have told him that it must remain a top priority.
We are determined to get to the bottom of these accidents so that we can learn the lessons from them and take the appropriate measures.

Mr. Allan Stewart: My right hon. Friend has spoken for the whole House, indeed the whole country, in expressing our sympathies for the injured and bereaved and in congratulating the emergency services. As he knows, I represent a large number of commuters on the south side of Glasgow. He also knows that the Glasgow commuter network has an excellent safety record. However, can he reassure all those using that network that urgent checks are being carried out on the safety and signalling systems throughout the network?

Mr. Channon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Every step will be taken to maintain the high level of safety to which my hon. Friend has referred, and I can give him the assurances for which he asks.
The important thing with this accident, as indeed with all the others, is to get at the truth as quickly as possible.
Then it will be clear what lessons can be learned from it. I hope that it will not be long before the facts of this accident are established beyond dispute.

Mr. John Prescott: On behalf of the Opposition, I offer our deepest sympathy to the relatives and friends of the two people who died and all those who were injured in yesterday's terrible accident. This is the third fatal crash in three months and it has left us all shocked and dismayed.
Once again, we express our unfailing admiration of the emergency services who responded so swiftly and with such skill and courage. We pay tribute to their professionalism and dedication. We also pay tribute to the way in which ordinary people living nearby once again played their full part in the rescue operation and wanted to do what they could to help.
We welcome the fact that British Rail, as at Clapham and Purley, has already accepted full responsibility for the latest tragic accident. But it is not enough to go on blaming individual human errors, which will always be a feature of such accidents, especially at a time when British Rail has received a report showing that last year alone there were over 700 incidents of trains going through red lights and has apparently failed to do anything about it. I welcome the Secretary of State's statement today that he has had discussions with British Rail about that problem.
Many of the questions that I asked yesterday are relevant today. For example, would it be easier to determine the circumstances that lead to such accidents if trains were fitted with black boxes? Will a study be made of the nature of the injuries sustained at Bellgrove, Purley and Clapham so that we can learn the appropriate lessons about the design of coaches, their seating and internal layout? The Secretary of State failed to respond yesterday. No doubt he was affected by the appalling tragedies with which it has been his misfortune to deal. However, I hope that he will read yesterday's Hansard and give a more detailed written response to the questions that I posed.
Again, I ask the Secretary of State whether he will order an independent inquiry into all aspects of safety on British Rail. Such an inquiry would take full account of investment, design, staffing and other factors that contribute to British Rail's safety. It would not replace the other separate and necessary investigations into the individual accidents. Indeed, it would complement them. Why will not the Secretary of State sanction a public inquiry with the broad remit that we have requested so that public confidence can be restored? Yesterday's accident illustrates why such an inquiry is needed.
Today I shall concentrate on one specific aspect arising directly out of the terrible accident and, indeed, arising out of the Secretary of State's response to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall), who asked whether the collision took place on single or double tracks. Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify the position because that is a most important point?
Is the Secretary of State aware that until recently there was a twin rail track for trains entering and leaving Bellgrove station which made a head-on collision impossible? Is he also aware that when British Rail announced that it intended to replace the twin tracks—which I believe are known as a diamond crossing—with a single track, it was warned that safety would be

compromised. it was warned that in the event of a human error or signal failure two trains on the same track could collide head-on. Can he tell me exactly why two trains were in the same position on one line?
Can the Secretary of State tell the House whether, if the extra leg of crossing had been there today, the accident would have been prevented? That is the question to which we are asking the Secretary of State to address himself. British Rail's justification for the removal of that extra link, which I believe played a contributory part in the accident, was that the maintenance of the diamond crossing was expensive in terms of costs and manpower. That is an essential point. Yesterday's terrible accident could have been avoided if British Rail had not had in mind the need to meet the Secretary of State's financial targets by reducing costs, thus affecting the level of safety.

Mr. Channon: I strongly refute what the hon. Gentleman said in the last part of his question, but I will try to deal with the serious points that he has made. [HON. MEMBERS: "They are all serious."] Yes, they are all serious. That is what I said. If I fail to deal with any of them, I shall write to the hon. Member, as he has asked.
The hon. Member asked me yesterday about the black box. Black boxes might make it easier in certain cases to get information after an accident but would not tend to make trains safer. We will see what happens at the inquiries, but I doubt at this stage whether black boxes would have made any difference. Let us wait and see what happens. Indeed, my answer to a great deal of what the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) said is that it is a great mistake for hon. Members on either side of the House to prejudge these inquiries until we know exactly what happened.

Mr. Prescott: Human error.

Mr. Channon: Human error, but whose error is for the inquiry to determine, and that is what British Rail says. I do not prejudge the inquiries.
As to single and double lines, I give the House the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall). The accident took place on the double line. Nevertheless, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East and his hon. Friends are on to a perfectly fair and pertinent point; there is a piece of single line. There are many places both in the United Kingdom and abroad where there are single tracks just like this one. When they are operated properly, when the signalling works—and that will be established by the inquiry—they are safe. I hope that the hon. Member will not suggest that single track, wherever it is, is dangerous. A higher level of signalling is required on single track than on the diamond crossing. The inquiry will, no doubt, determine whether this was a relevant factor. We must wait and see what happens, why this accident took place and what was the relevance of single or double track. Single track is operated extremely successfully and safely in many parts of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Bill Walker: Will my right hon. Friend accept that all of us in Scotland wish to be associated with the words spoken about the bereaved and those who were injured? We welcome the fact that a public inquiry will be held and that all the evidence will become public.
I caution my right hon. Friend against the overtures that he is getting about single-track operations. ScotRail operates single track in many parts of Scotland. In my constituency, the line between Perth and Inverness is single-track and it works most efficiently. We would be very distressed if any changes were made there to the detriment of the service. In recent years ScotRail has improved its services between Perth and Glasgow and there is no question whatever but that the services are better and that times are better. There has been a great improvement. Anyone who uses that line regularly, as I do, will vouch for that.
I also find it distressing and disturbing that every time the Prime Minister visits Scotland she is chastised by Opposition Members, yet on the one occasion when she cannot do so because of her other engagements she is again chastised. It seems that regardless of what one does one cannot be right. Hon. Members forget that there is no Secretary of State for England, but there is a Secretary of State for Scotland, who has visited the site.

Mr. Channon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland visited the infirmary this morning.
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend also on the important point, which I hope hon. Members on both sides of the House will take in, about single rail and the way in which it operates successfully in many parts of the United Kingdom, particularly the line that he mentioned. I am grateful to him for what he has said.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: May I associate myself with the earlier remarks and pass on our condolences and sympathies to the victims and their families? As someone whose father and grandfather were committed railway workers, I more than anyone else know of the awareness of British Rail and ScotRail staff about safety north of the border.
It puzzles me that the Secretary of State says that he does not wish to prejudge the inquiry, and then says that British Rail has stated that this accident is attributable to human error. Will he tell the House who said that this morning? The lesson that we should have learned from the M I air disaster is that such rumours can fly round very easily. We should wait until a full inquiry has been carried out before we start attributing the accident to human error.
It also strikes me as odd that the railways have to produce a strict 7 per cent. economic return on developments, whereas road funding, when new roads are being developed, can take into account social and safety factors.
Will the Government give us a clear undertaking that any future capital investment in rolling stock will allow British Rail and ScotRail to take safety factors into consideration when replacing rolling stock? It is quite clear that the House is concerned about investment in the railway system. The river Ness rail bridge disaster was another example of lack of investment. Will the Secretary of State respond to the demands for a full general inquiry into British Rail's safety?

Mr. Channon: As I have told the House on a number of occasions, we must get to the bottom of the recent accidents to discover the causes and take immediate action when we know what is required. There has been considerable investment in ScotRail and there have been

all sorts of improvements at stations such as Glasgow Central and Edinburgh Waverley and by Strathclyde PTE in electrification and rolling stock. [Interruption.] I shall answer all the points that the hon. Gentleman raised. He will be interested to know that new rolling stock is due on that line.
The hon. Gentleman asked me about what British Rail has said. It was not said by me. I believe that it was said by counsel to British Rail to the Hidden inquiry this morning, but I shall have to check that. I am merely quoting what counsel for British Rail said.
I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that we do not want to prejudge the result of the inquiry. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman has asked me a question and I am doing my best to answer it.
I shall not go into the question of funding for roads. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, although there are superficial differences, no worthwhile investment proposal by British Rail in the past 10 years has been turned down by my predecessors or me. I see no reason why that should not continue to be the case.

Mr. Conal Gregory: I am sure that the whole House joins my right hon. Friend in expressing sympathy to the families of the bereaved. As there has been a series of railway accidents, while my right hon. Friend is correct in setting up independent inquiries, will he consider initiating a separate signals inspectorate which would be a completely independent body, to approve British Rail when it undertakes important signalling matters? Not only would that be a major step towards public safety and confidence in our great British railway industry, but it would be one step towards denationalisation and an appropriate division, as we have in the airlines between the Civil Aviation Authority and the airways. We have had such a spate of accidents that nothing less will restore confidence.

Mr. Channon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I know of the great importance of British Rail to his constituency, and his deep interest in the industry. His suggestion of a. signals inspectorate must be relevant to Mr. Hidden's Clapham inquiry. I suspend judgment until we know the result of that inquiry, but my hon. Friend has raised an important point which needs to be considered.

Mr. Robert Hughes: The Minister mentioned the pilot study. When will it begin? What will it cost? How long will it last? How quickly can he get the results? Will he give a guarantee that if the pilot study is successful there will be no question of sufficient money being withheld from British Rail to apply it to the entire track?

Mr. Channon: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the answer to all those questions. Given his experience, he will understand that it is a very complicated matter and no system can be installed quickly. In many ways, United Kingdom signalling systems are more advanced than many continental systems, and no systems are available which could be applied to British Rail immediately. They have to be tailored to our signalling system. There has been. preliminary work for some time and now we have to move to a pilot scheme, as British Rail wishes, and as I think is a very good idea.

Mr. Hughes: When will it start?

Mr. Channon: The work is going on now, but I cannot give the hon. Gentleman an answer this afternoon as to when the scheme will begin. I do not want to mislead the House as it is an extremely complex matter.

Mr. Jeremy Hanley: Although the three recent accidents were tragic and regrettable, and we must learn from the results of the inquiries, does my right hon. Friend agree that 15 people are killed on the roads every day, and that he should reassure the public that travelling by rail is one of the safest modes of transport?

Mr. Channon: I agree with my hon. Friend about the tragic losses in road accidents every day. His figure is approximately right. In spite of the tragedies in recent weeks, rail travel remains a very much safer form of transport than practically any other.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: On behalf of my hon. Friends in the nationalist parties, I extend sympathy and best wishes to the families and friends of the injured, and in particular, our sympathies to the families of the bereaved.
Reverting to the question raised by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes), is there not an element of a public relations exercise about this when the Secretary of State gives a throwaway line in a statement of great importance but cannot give the House accurate details of the pilot scheme? That is surely to hold out false hopes that there can be early action to improve the signalling system. May we have from the Secretary of State a commitment that when evidence of the need to upgrade equipment and rolling stock is brought forward from the public inquiries, he, like the Secretary of State for Energy after the Piper Alpha inquiry, will be prepared to say that, when safety recommendations are made, no expense will be spared in implementing them?

Mr. Channon: I assure the hon. Lady that, as I have said on many occasions, safety is our top priority. We shall study the reports of the inquiries and take appropriate action. I see no reason why the House should doubt me on that. If it does, it will have a chance of finding out very shortly.
As to the hon. Lady's question concerning automatic train protection, and whether, as she says, it is a so-called PR exercise, it would only be a PR exercise if I tried to mislead the House and to pretend that there was a quick and easy solution. I am giving the House the best information that I have at present. It is an extremely complicated matter. It is very difficult to install protection systems, which are not exactly comparable to systems used in other parts of Europe. Work is urgently progressing, and a pilot scheme will come forward as quickly as possible. If the hon. Lady will write to me or put down questions, I shall make sure that she is kept in touch.

Dr. John Reid: I add my condolences and sympathy for the relatives of those who were killed or injured, and offer my congratulations to the emergency services.
How many times will the Secretary of State have to come to the Dispatch Box, how many accidents will have to occur, and how many lives must be lost before the right hon. Gentleman will admit that we are experiencing not a series of specific incidents but a growing general pattern of accidents? How can the right hon. Gentleman properly

investigate that pattern of accidents unless he establishes a general inquiry into the safety of British Rail, including aspects such as investment, schedules, rosters, the drive for productivity, and cost reductions? In the absence of such a general inquiry, how can the right hon. Gentleman be so sure that the rundown in cash, increases in productivity, cutbacks and cost reductions have not affected British Rail's safety standards? How many times must human error be a factor before the Secretary of State accepts that pressures may be causing that human error? Will the present inquiries include an examination of schedules and of the pressures that are placed on drivers?
I ask the Secretary of State to clarify what appeared to be a contradiction between his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) and a later answer? Will he tell the House straight whether the accident occurred on a two-way track that was previously a one-way track? If so, was that change made for reasons of economy and cost saving?

Mr. Channon: On the hon. Gentleman's last point, I do not think that I misled the House—certainly I did not mean to do so. The accident occurred on a two-way track, beyond a one-way track.

Dr. Reid: But was it previously a one-way track?

Mr. Channon: No, it was not. It is a two-way track.

Dr. Reid: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered my question.

Mr. Channon: I do not want to mislead the House. I am doing my best to clarify the situation, and I do not want to make matters worse. I have given the hon. Gentleman an exact and accurate answer. If he does not think that I have, no doubt he will write to me, and I shall try to clarify the matter further.
As to pressures and all the other factors the hon. Gentleman mentioned, and which may occur in such situations, the inspector can take all relevant matters into account. I assure the hon. Gentleman that if there is a link between all the accidents, that will become clear as a result of the inquiries and we can then take appropriate steps. As to investment, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman welcomes the fact that, this year alone, investment in our railways is 30 per cent. higher in real terms than it was in 1978.

Mr. Gary Waller: In view of recent claims and allegations, and in view of the last question, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is very wrong to reach conclusions about patterns in accidents whose causes may prove to be very different? Also, is it not a fact that, despite recent tragic accidents, rail is, by and large, one of the safest surface modes of transport—perhaps 15 times safer than travelling by road?
In view of the many questions that have been asked about expenditure, will my right hon. Friend confirm that not only is spending at a very high level—and, incidentally, unrelated to the size of the PSO grant—but that, in the next four years, British Rail's expenditure, including that on safety, will rise very considerably?

Mr. Channon: I can give my hon. Friend all the assurances for which he asks. I agree with him that we should wait for the result of the inquiry so that the House


will be in an informed position rather than that hon. Members should draw conclusions long before there is evidence to support them.
My hon. Friend is right in saying that rail remains one of the safest forms of transport.
On the question of capital investment, my hon. Friend will be interested to know that it is £560 million a year, and will increase to about £755 million a year. It is already 30 per cent. higher in real terms than it was in 1978.

Mr. Bob McTaggart: May I join other hon. Members and express my sincere thanks to the emergency services and indeed the volunteers who were involved after this accident? I extend my sympathy to all those who were involved in it.
I agree with the Secretary of State that there is a pressing need for the inquiry's findings to be reported as soon as possible. But surely the Secretary of State must be aware that the public have the right to expect the highest possible level of service and safety in the public transport system, although at the moment in their mind's eye the safety requirements are seen to be damaged or expendable in the case of obtaining the cheapest possible public transport system. Will the Secretary of State undertake to ensure that the safety of the public is uppermost in any plans for an integrated public transport system?

Mr. Channon: I can well understand the hon. Gentleman's feelings and that he and his constituents are deeply concerned about this accident and rail transport safety in Glasgow. I cannot accept, however, what he says about safety; nor can I accept what he says about economies being made in this way. The hon. Gentleman might be interested to know that basic costs of these lines, including those provided by Strathclyde, have risen in real terms between 1984 and 1989 from £195 million to about £205 million. So far from going down, they are increasing.

Mr. Brian Wilson: Does the Secretary of State accept that his understandable pleas for the suspension of any attempts to attribute responsibility for these terrible tragedies would be convincing if he stopped doing exactly that himself? He said that all the indications are that this accident, as with that at Purley, was caused by human error rather than technical defects. May I suggest—although I hope that the right hon.

Gentleman makes no more of these excursions—that he should impose upon himself the same self-denying ordinance that he asks of others?
Will the Secretary of State acknowledge the simple reality that, where there was previously a diamond crossing with two cross-over points to prevent collisions, there is now a single crossing? When the Secretary of State met Sir Robert Reid this morning and while he was talking about the problems of drivers going through signals at red, did he also ask what part diamond crossings play in railway safety? Did he ask why this particular diamond crossing was removed? If the answer proves to be that it was removed solely on grounds of economy, will he accept that there is something very wrong with our priorities in the way that we run our railways? Will the right hon. Gentleman at least have the humility to consider the possibility that cuts kill?
Will the Secretary of State please talk to railway workers as well as management to get an authentic grass roots view of what is being done to our railway system? I believe that he will find widespread concern that in the run-up to privatisation, which he currently regards as his personal responsibility, corners are being cut, and especially safety corners.

Mr. Channon: The hon. Gentleman grossly exaggerates the situation. Although he says that cuts kill, I have already told the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McTaggart) that basic expenditure has risen in this area. It has not been reduced.
The question of single lines and diamond crossings is very important. Diamond crossings have their own problems of maintenance and safety. Indeed, every part of the railway has its own particular problems. It is a mistake for any hon. Member to say a t this stage that single-line systems are unsafe. It is well known that large parts of the railway network have single lines. When they are operated properly, there is no reason to assume that they are in any way unsafe.
On the point that the hon. Gentleman makes about not imputing blame, I have not imputed blame to anyone, I have merely quoted what British Rail said. It is extremely important for the general public to realise that there are no technical defects on this line. Otherwise they would have every right to be worried about that and deserve reassurance. The Opposition have failed to make that important point.

Standing Committee F

Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I see from the Order Paper that you have appointed the First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means as an additional chairman of Standing Committee F in respect of the Social Security Bill. I have read in the press—and perhaps you could let the House know whether this is the case—that Government Whips strongly prevented the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), a member of the Conservative party, from chairing that Committee at certain times because they said that the hon. Gentleman had signed an early-day motion.
There are several points on which I should like you to give your view, Mr. Speaker. First, relating to the impartiality of the Chairmen's Panel, is it suggested that because an hon. Member has signed an early-day motion when that hon. Member is on the Chairmen's Panel he or she is not impartial? That would be an insult to the hon. Member concerned. I know that the opposition did not come from you, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must stop the hon. Gentleman there. It is within my discretion who is appointed to be the Chairman of a Standing Committee. I took into account several factors concerning Chairmen of Standing Committee F and I have appointed for this day one of the Deputy Speakers. I cannot go further than that.

Mr. Winnick: May I ask you a question, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: No, I do not believe the hon. Gentleman can do so.

Mr. Winnick: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: No. I shall deal with the statutory instrument motion.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Ordered,
That the draft Evidence in Divorce Actions (Scotland) Order 1989 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Sackville.]

Early-day Motion 523

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Is this a different point of order?

Mr. Skinner: Yes, it is. You, Mr. Speaker, probably noticed early-day motion 523 on yesterday's Order Paper. It had little political significance as it congratulated the Prime Minister on the birth of her grandchild. I thought that I would give it some political significance by tabling an amendment.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should not refer in the Chamber to a decision that I have taken regarding the Order Paper.

Mr. Skinner: I did not know that you had taken a decision, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I have.

Mr. Skinner: That explains it. I went to the Table Office. Probably we were trying to do the same thing, little knowing that we were working together, you and I. When I got there, I thought, "I shall amend this thing by saying that I hope that the"—

Mr. Speaker: No; the hon. Gentleman must not mention in the Chamber what his amendment might have been.

Mr. Skinner: Our amendment.

Mr. Speaker: I know that the hon. Gentleman and I work very closely together, but let us leave it at that.

Control of Litter (Fines)

Mr. Simon Burns: I beg to move,
That leave he given to bring in a Bill to give local authorities the power to impose on-the-spot fines for litter offences and to make retail outlets and other premises responsible for the cleanliness of the public footpaths outside their premises; and for connected purposes.
The background to the national problem of litter is well known and widely debated. It is a self-inflicted problem caused by a minority of thoughtless, selfish litter louts who cause a great deal of damage to the environment in which we live and to the quality of life. Sadly, this country is fast becoming the dustbin of Europe and the image that we present to visitors and tourists should fill us all with shame.
The problem can be put in perspective by realising that enough paper and card is thrown away each year to afforest an area the size of Wales. Incidentally, politicians who are concerned for the environment should remember, particularly at election time, that we add to the weight of litter with a plethora of election literature. I trust that Members of the SLD in particular will bear that in mind in 1991–92.
Local authorities, public-spirited individuals and central Government are trying to tackle the issue, but their efforts are hampered by the sheer scale of the problem. For example, Chelmsford borough council has an excellent ad hoc "Cleaner Chelmsford Committee" which, under the leadership of the mayor, Councillor Philip Firth does an excellent job, but its efforts are not so well rewarded as they should be because of the lack of effective legislation to back up what is done with meaningful penalties and deterrents against litter louts. Despite all its good intentions, the Litter Act 1983 is fast becoming a national joke. Between 1984 and 1988, 5,901 people were found guilty of offences under the Act, but the number of people successfuly prosecuted represents but a tiny proportion of the problem throughout the nation. Furthermore, no deterrents have been built up because the average fine imposed by the courts was a mere £32 compared with a statutory maximum of £400. In short, litter louts realise that the overwhelming majority of them can offend with impunity. The chance of getting caught is minuscule and even if they are caught the punishment is paltry.
My Bill is designed to launch an effective attack on litter louts and to show them that society means business in controlling them and reducing the problem. To that end, my Bill has three aims. The first is to extend to all local authorities the power that Westminster city council took for itself last year in a private Bill to enable specially designated local authority employees to impose on-the-spot litter fines on people caught offending. At present, every local authority watching the Westminster experience and wishing to have that power in its own area will have to go through the procedure of launching a private Bill to seek the power. Sweeping away that problem and giving every local authority that power is therefore the first aim of my Bill.
Designated officials of councils—Westminster has between 50 and 60—will then have power, on seeing people throwing down litter in the streets or on the roads, to request them to pick it up and put it in a refuse bin or take it home with them. Should they refuse, they will get a fixed penalty ticket, similar to a parking ticket. They will have 14 days in which to pay the fine, with the option of

going to the magistrates' court to plead the case and show why they should not have to pay the fine. In the first six months of the Westminster scheme, up to December last year, 590 people were apprehended. Of that number, all but three picked up their litter and put it in a rubbish bin. One person is being prosecuted. It is difficult to proceed against the two others because one lives in Hong Kong and the other gave a wrong address.
The second purpose of my Bill is to adopt a scheme that is common on the continent. Shops, fast food outlets and banks—particularly banks with cash dispensing machines—would be responsible for their shop fronts and the pavements in front of their premises. At present, one has only to visit any area of any town in Britain late at night, particularly near fast food outlets, to see the mess and wanton disregard for the environment. Fish and chip bags, fast food plastic packages and so forth are discarded for the local authority to clear away. The shopkeeper as well as the individual should have a moral responsibility to ensure that our cities, towns and villages are kept clean. That is why my Bill would impose a duty on the keepers of such premises to keep their fronts clear of litter.
Thirdly, my Bill would encoarage—I say no more than "encourage" because it would be difficult in law to do more—manufacturers to bring back the disposable deposit scheme that was popular up to 20 or 30 years ago. That would be reintroduced on bottles and cans so that when people brought bottles of lemonade or whatever, they would have an incentive to return the containers to the point of sale and to obtain a refund. There would also be an incentive for youngsters to add to their pocket money by picking up that sort of rubbish and returning it to shops, thus cleaning up behind those who do not bother to get the refund and continue to discard bottles and cans. That would enhance our recycling programmes because more cans, bottles and glass would be collected.
Those are the three key points of my Bill, which would set an example for the way forward and give local authorities the power to build up deterrents against litter louts, who would no longer discard their rubbish with impunity. Areas would soon gain a reputation for being tough with litter louts. By that means we would enhance the centres of our cities, towns and villages and improve the quality of life generally.
I ask Members in all parts of the House to support my Bill. If through lack of parliamentary time, as only six or seven months of the Session remain, all stages in both Houses cannot be completed. I urge the Government to take careful note of my Bill and what is said by its supporters—the public in general, local authorities and people with a special interest in improving the environment—and to introduce a Bill of their own. That would increase the reputation that the Government are justifiably establishing for being concerned with the environment. It would show that they are not merely whingeing about the problem but are actively doing something to solve it and thereby providing a better future for our children.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Simon Burns, Mr. Andrew Mitchell, Mrs. Gillian Shephard, Mrs. Rosie Barnes, Mr. Archy Kirkwood, Mr. Jerry Hayes, Mr. David Nicholson, Mr. Timothy Kirkhope, Mr. Alan Amos, Mr. David Wilshire and Mrs. Teresa Gorman.

CONTROL OF LITTER (FINES)

Mr. Simon Burns accordingly presented a Bill to give local authorities the power to impose on-the-spot fines for litter offences and to make retail outlets and other premises responsible for the cleanliness of the public footpaths outside their premises; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 12 May and to be printed. [Bill 92.]

ESTIMATES DAY

IST ALLOTTED DAY

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES 1988–89

CLASS IV, VOTE 3

[Relevant document: The First Report from the Agriculture Committee of Session 1988–89 on salmonella in eggs ( House of Commons Paper No. 108–I).]

Egg Industry

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 3Ist March 1989 for expenditure by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on market support, grants and loans for capital and other improvements, support for agriculture in special areas and compensation to sheep producers, animal health, arterial drainage, flood and coast protection, and certain other services.—[Mr. Sackville.]

Mr. Speaker: I remind the House that today's debate on class IV, vote 3 of the Estimates is limited to the subject of assistance to the egg industry, in accordance with the recommendation of the Liaison Committee, whose report was agreed to by the House on 28 February.

Mr. Jerry Wiggin: It is a rare privilege for the Chairman of a Select Committee to be able to introduce a report for debate on the Floor of the House; to be able to do so within a week of its publication must be almost unique. I fully appreciate that this subject has received more than its fair share of attention in recent weeks, for reasons that the House well understands, and not unrelated to the fact that in the course of the last three weeks at least one Supply day has been devoted to similar issues. Nevertheless, by the nature of things, the press can, and does give only a modest amount of space to our findings.
I hope that those who have read the report in full will appreciate the comprehensive way in which we have sought to cover this limited subject. We have deliberately confined our study to salmonella in eggs, even though many witnesses sought to divert us to the wider territory not only of salmonella in poultry generally but of the whole question of food safety.
Because of the nature of the emergency, the widespread concern expressed in the media, and the catastrophic effect on the industry, we felt that it was extremely urgent to produce our report, together with the evidence that went towards it, as soon as possible. We claim no records, but I doubt whether many Select Committee reports of the substance of this one have been produced in such a short time. Indeed, had it not been for the delay occasioned by the illness of a key witness, we might have been able to report even earlier. We had to invite evidence from all interested parties and leave them a reasonable reply period, which, incidentally, overran the Christmas holiday.
With a number of members of the Committee serving on Standing Committees, and some representing constituencies in regions as far away as Northern Ireland and Scotland, it was really practical for us to meet only on Wednesdays. Although this allows proper consideration of


the written evidence in preparation for oral sessions, it may seem from the outside somewhat dilatory. Nevertheless, once we had completed our oral sessions we were able to consider the draft report in the course of the next two weeks, and we finally published on 1 March, only one day behind our original estimate of the end of February.
I must pay tribute to the Clerk, Mr. David Robson, and his staff in the Select Committee office—actually, only two assistants and one hard-pressed secretary—who have to deal not only with the study in hand but with the other peripheral business, which is quite extensive.
Conscious of the fact that in this whole matter there was a considerable element of scientific evidence, we appointed as our special advisers Dr. Michael Whitehead, formerly head of the public health laboratory service, and Mr. Don Haxby, a former president of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. We could not have asked for, or received, greater help than we were given by those two gentlemen. I am delighted to learn that Dr. Whitehead will be advising another Select Committee in the near future—with a glowing reference from ourselves.
Naturally, I am sorry that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food cannot be with us today, but I fully understand the extreme importance of his presence in Brussels, where he is negotiating the price review. Sad as his absence from this House may be, I have to say that in the national interest his presence there is probably more important. I am certain that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, who occupies a most important position in the Government, will be an excellent substitute. I know that his day-to-day work on this matter has been extensive, and we could not ask for better guidance from the Front Bench.
I appreciate that the Government will wish, at a future time, to respond in full detail to our conclusions and recommendations. However, I hope that the Minister, when he intervenes, will be able to give a clear indication of the Government's initial reaction to our report, particularly as many of our recommendations are already in train. Indeed, the Ministry of Agriculture has been claiming that no fewer than 17 measures have been introduced to help to remedy this difficult problem. While it is quite clear that many of those were in preparation before 3 December, the Ministry, too, must have been listening to the evidence that we received, and to the tone of our questions, to have responded in such an across-the-board manner and so promptly. I hope also that the Government will see the time scale for their response as being rather shorter than the normal three months, in view of the widespread public concern about this matter, as well as the very special efforts that my Committee has made to produce its report as soon as possible.
Predictably enough, the press has described the report in various ways, but most of the newspapers have concentrated on those to whom we ascribe blame. I hope that those who have read the report in its entirety will recognise that it is much more balanced than that. Generally, it acknowledges that the Government are on the right track in the way in which they are trying to control salmonella, but it has to be said that some of the measures have been taken too slowly—a criticism that we have set out in detail.
If our report has put the Government under the spotlight, I believe that today's debate puts Select Committees as a whole very much in the same glare. It is obvious, to me at least, that the public, and even journalists, who should know better, are still not clear as. to how Select Committees should operate and what resources and information are open to them.
As I see it, it is our role to monitor past decisions of the Government, particularly those involving public money. This is a natural extension of the right of the House in relation to the Government of the day. There are some, of course, who see us in the same light as Select Committees of the United States Congress. Those people fail to observe the very substantial difference, which is simply that Ministers in the United States Administration are not members of the elected Houses and cannot answer questions there. The American Select Committees, therefore, provide a connection and an arm of Government that are neither necessary not desirable in this country.
One journalist, who commented that we as a Select Committee should have been better informed about this affair during last summer, fails to recognise that at no time does a Select Committee have privileged access to Government decisions or papers or to ministerial decisions—nor do I believe that it should. We are a post-mortem body, the pathologists of Parliament, if I may put it that way. It is up to us to judge what has taken place in the past and to cast our judgment where we will. On top of that, it is not unreasonable to say that, having made a criticism, it is only right and positive to make suggestions as to what should be done by way of correction. I hope that the House will find that in our report we have tried to adopt that principle.
This is a classic case of a Minister sparking off an incident encompassing not only the mass media but a large and important industry, as well as touching that most sensitive nerve—the health of the general public. The Government sought to respond, yet even the most partisan observer must acknowledge that the matter had reached a stage of substantial national interest in a very short time. Government money of a potentially serious order was involved; two Government Departments had direct responsibility; the egg producers and the food industry were thoroughly alarmed; and individual members of the public were left bemused, confused, and frightened. The matter was directly the responsibility of the Agriculture Select Committee, and the announcement that we proposed to investigate the matter was greeted with considerable relief by all the interested parties—anyhow, those outside the Government—who recognised that we provided a forum in which the matter could be considered reasonably, with all the information available.
I do not pretend that our report is definitive. No doubt there are questions that we failed to ask, and answers that we misinterpreted. However, the report was the product of a careful examination of the issues in which party politics played little or no part. Commentators are sometimes surprised that committees of politicians with very different views can reach unanimous conclusions. I do not share this scepticism. In the case of this Select Committee, and this report, the conclusions are based on the evidence. The more evidence we heard, the more certain we became of some of our conclusions. We received a comprehensive and widespread selection of written evidence, and further questioned a number of key witnesses.
Until now, unofficial comments from the Government have been somewhat limited, although my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has said that he intends to take parts of the report seriously. It is interesting to observe the reactions of interested parties, all of whom, so far, have concluded that it is an excellent report, except the part that criticises them. I must repeat that the whole report was considered with the greatest care by the Committee and its final version was unanimously accepted.
I have been concerned by the innuendo that there should be some bias in the report, simply because there happens to be a majority of one Conservative in the composition of the Committee. My hon. Friends and I are not noted for our hostility to the Government—quite the reverse—so I ask Ministers, even if they are not in agreement with our findings, to acknowledge the integrity of the evidence-gathering and evidence-sifting that we have been through.
In that context, I noted the remarks of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health, who described our reaction to his part in the matter as "ridiculous". Anyone who has been in active politics for any time occasionally gets it wrong or is misquoted in the press. We all know the immense difficulty that retraction or correction presents and, even with the wisdom of hindsight, I acknowledge the problem. What is clear, however, is that the reaction of the Government at the time did not produce the desired result. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will ponder that section of the report as carefully as any other.
Interested as the press may be in the safety or otherwise of eggs, we all have no illusions as to why our investigation attracted such intense attention from the press. It was a matter of great relief to me when my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) agreed to attend a hearing of the Committee. Whether the public believes our report or not, we would have seriously lacked credibility if we had not been able to question her in person. While she maintained that there was little that she could add to the total sum of our knowledge—and her evidence did little to dispel that—she certainly corroborated our impression of events leading from her statement on 3 December, and for that alone her presence was merited.
Many hon. Members took the view at the time that there was a substantial constitutional point at stake. If an hon. Member who had herself been a member of a Select Committee in the past, and a former member of a Government committed to assisting Select Committees, were to refuse to appear before us, how much harder would it be for Select Committees which wished to compel reluctant strangers to attend. The House absolutely insists on its right to question Ministers, and I do not believe it would be well understood by anyone inside or outside the House if former Ministers were to rely on some claim of privilege that precluded them from examination, particularly when the matters concerned referred to their time as office holders. However, there is no sanction on anyone who refuses to answer questions, although the Committee is entitled to draw its own conclusion from such reluctance.
I recall describing the experience of resigning from office as being "extremely hurtful". I am sure that my hon. Friend has suffered considerably. I am personally grateful to her for avoiding a constitutional dilemma for the House, and for her kind words to me personally, which I appreciated.
Now that the Committee has produced its report, which I hope deals with the important issues involved in the affair, I would not seek to bore the House by going over it again paragraph by paragraph. Nevertheless, it is certain that the newspapers' obsession with criticism obscured the far more important issues of establishing an answer to some of the questions that were being asked. Therefore, by way of a summary, we set out what we believed were the six most important questions and our answers to them, extracted from the main body of the report.
Clearly, the point to which we wish to give most emphasis concerns the safety of eggs. It was our very firm conclusion that normally healthy people should feel no cause for concern. I will read to the House the answer to our question, "How safe are eggs?" We said:
The risks to individual consumers cannot be quantified exactly, but given that the likelihood of an egg being infected with salmonella is very small, and the likelihood of the infection not being destroyed by cooking is even smaller, normally healthy people should feel no cause for concern. Those who consume uncooked eggs or uncooked egg dishes should be aware that these carry a slight risk. Care should be taken to cook eggs thoroughly for vulnerable groups, in line with the Chief Medical Officer's advice.
I hope that that will give comfort to the many millions who every day eat eggs and who look upon them as a cheap, reasonable and safe food, and will also put the market back where it belongs in due course.
I should like to say a word about the role which some television programmes played. Ever ready to pour petrol on the flames, they sought and found two individuals who were ready to spread alarm and despondency with selected facts and figures. The opportunity that was presented to Dr. Lang, a social psychologist who runs the London Food Commission, was not lost on him. Television could scarcely complete a programme on the subject without his gloomy tidings and instructions on hygiene. His business is propaganda. If I say that his organisation was originally funded by the Greater London council when it was led by the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), I do not think I need say more.
Professor Lacey, whose credentials as professor of microbiology at Leeds university are substantially more relevant, was able with almost theatrical statements to use his position and knowledge to considerable effect, again owing to the endless exposure which his woeful tale obtained, particularly on television. It would be too much to expect that any balanced view should be broadcast, but I wonder how widespread the distress caused by these two gentlemen must have been among the less well informed members of the public, to say nothing of the many thousands of egg producers and others who lost substantial sums of money as a result of the crisis.
The news that bits of dead chicken were being fed to chickens drew pictures of appalling cannibalism that clearly revolved everyone. We examined the matter in detail and found that no less than 1·25 million tonnes of animal products every year are ground, boiled, dried and processed to provide a highly nutritious form of animal protein, very little of which is used in laying rations. While it is true that it can be infected with salmonella, there is no


evidence that that was the cause of any outbreaks, nor indeed would any ordinary person be particularly repelled by the substance, which is simply a brown coloured powder, except possibly by its rather rich smell.
I hope to be able to claim that my Committee has enhanced the reputation of Select Committees, has produced a balanced report which contains positive suggestions for improvement that will be informative to the House and the general public, and will uphold the principle that the House will be vigilant and, if necessary, critical of the Government in the interests of the welfare of all the people.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Richard Ryder): As my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr.Wiggin) has already said, my right hon. Friend the Minister is in Brussels taking part in crucial negotiations and has asked me to apologise for his absence from the debate. I am pleased to follow my hon. Friend's balanced speech and I express personal admiration for the clear, fluent style used by the authors of his Committee's report. We should also recognise that the Committee worked against deadlines with great speed.
I stress that my speech today is not the Government's official response to the Select Committee report. That will come soon, once we have absorbed the report's interpretation of events and completed our analysis of those recommendations not already executed or known publicly to be in the pipeline. The 17 measures which the Government have already announced to tackle salmonella cover many of the Committee's recommendations. Indeed, as my hon. Friend knows, 15 of the 17 measures had been decided on and disclosed to the Committee before its hearings began.
Soon after my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare decided to inquire into the new and growing problem of salmonella in eggs, the Department of Health and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food submitted a joint memorandum to his Committee. That was, and remains, a key document because it sets out at length and in detail the international nature and prevalence of salmonella enteritidis phage type 4 and the action being taken by the British Government to combat it. Paragraph 16 of the submission says:
There is no other zoonosis as complex in its epidemiology and control as salmonellosis. Epidemiological patterns differ greatly between geographical areas depending on climate, population density, land use, farming practices, food harvesting and processing technologies, and consumer habits. Moreover, the biology of salmonella serovars differs so widely that discussions on salmonellosis, salmonella infections or salmonella contamination are inevitably complex.
Those words were not written by a Minister or Government official—they were plucked as a direct quotation from the World Health Organisation's 1988 expert committee report. So if anyone here or outside still contends that this complex issue can be tackled by sloganising or simple solutions based on magic potions they should cast aside their misleading thoughts and concentrate on the facts so starkly highlighted by the World Health Organisation.
Definitive identification of affected flocks can be achieved only by isolation of the organisms in laboratories. There is no rapid, simple blood test anywhere in the world to identify live birds with salmonella

enteritidis phage type 4. Consequently, there can be no guarantees that a flock is free from salmonella. Salmonella organisms are present and persistent all around us in the environment and there is no sound method of eliminating them from laying houses. The Government's chief veterinary officer has always argued that even a wholesale slaughter policy, followed by thorough cleansing and disinfecting of sheds, would not guarantee that subsequent flocks would be salmonella free. The Select Committee acknowledged in paragraph 30 that
experts agree that salmonellas are impossible to eradicate altogether. They are ubiquitous organisms: reservoirs of infection exist in all birds and animals, and in humans.

Mr. Martyn Jones (Clywd, South-West): What the Minister is saying is, of course, true for all salmonella species, but it must surely be possible to eliminate one particular type—for example, salmonella enteritidis phage type 4, which was the one that the Committee mainly considered—as, indeed, salmonella gallinorum and pullorum have been eliminated from flocks because they are pathogenic to chickens.

Mr. Ryder: I have great respect for the hon. Gentleman's scientific knowledge and background, but no country has found the answer to that form of salmonella. If such an answer existed, clearly it would be deployed. There have been ways of detecting other forms of salmonella, but not enteritidis phage type 4. As soon as an answer is found anywhere in the world, the hon. Gentleman can be certain that the British Government will be the first to deploy it in chicken houses.

Mr. Tim Boswell: Following my hon. Friend's response to the intervention of the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones), does he agree that other salmonellae are also capable of causing food poisoning in humans? Even if we eliminate enteritidis phage type 4—as we hope in due course to do—we shall still need the general vigilance and the precautions set out in our report to reduce to a minimum the risk of food poisoning.

Mr. Ryder: My hon. Friend is right. There are nearly 2,000 different forms of salmonella. Indeed, salmonella typhimurium—the form of salmonella which affected the House of Lords last year—is in many ways even more serious than salmonella enteritidis phage type 4. Moreover, far from being unique to Britain, reservoirs also exist in countries such as the United States, France, Eire, the Netherlands, Portugal and Spain, and some reported cases of salmonella in Britain have been from people laid low immediately after returning from business or holiday trips abroad.
As soon as the Government received confirmation last summer from doctors, scientists and vets of a serious problem linking food poisoning in humans and salmonella enteritidis phage type 4 in eggs, action was taken. An immediate and intensive review was carried out by doctors, scientists and vets. Joint meetings were held between the Department of Health, the public health laboratory service, the Ministry and representatives of the egg industry. The joint working party on salmonella and eggs drew up a report on specific areas where research was required. That report was made available to the House in January. The short-term research that it recommended was commissioned as soon as the working group identified the needs. We did not wait for the report to be finalised.


Other committees were established at official level, and work was accelerated in order to forward firm recommendations to Ministers.

Mr. Eric Martlew: The report states that in February last year the Hull medical officer of health advised hospitals in his area not to give under-boiled or raw eggs to patients, but it was not until July that the Government conveyed that recommendation to the National Health Service generally.

Mr. Ryder: The doctors, scientists and vets who advised the Government did not have conclusive confirmation until last summer that there was a serious problem linking food poisoning in humans and salmonella enteritidis phage type 4.
My right hon. Friend the Minister informed the Select Committee in his own evidence that Ministers received recommendations from officials in November. He stressed that we not only decided to act on them straight away but that we decided at once to go further by introducing extra measures which included giving statutory effect to significant sections of the codes of practice. In parallel with those decisions, I met representatives of the industry to repeat to them that Ministers took the problem of salmonella very seriously and that we looked to the industry to do so as well. We also urged it, as a matter of urgency, to carry out the action in the codes of practice. I explained to the industry that the safety of the food chain was paramount—one outbreak of salmonella was one too many—and that public confidence in the industry would dissolve unless it was seen to be acting at the same time as the Government began announcing their comprehensive package of measures.
There is a postcript to the story of my meeting with the industry. Last Wednesday evening, after publication of the Select Committee report, I watched the BBC's 6 o'clock news. I saw Keith Pulman of the United Kingdom Egg Producers Association interviewed by Clive Ferguson. Mr. Pulman said:
The egg producers were not told about it"—
that is, evidence of salmonella in eggs—
until 19th December".
That is very rum, because Keith Pulman had written in an article in the "United Kingdom Egg Producers Association News" that
The Ministry of Health announcement on Friday, 26 August advising the public to avoid eating raw eggs was made after full consultation with the industry".
That article was dated 2 September. All I can say is that Mr. Pulman either has a capricious memory or is a victim of impersonation. The Government decisions and meetings to which I have referred all occurred before the ITN interview of my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) on 3 December.
The Select Committee has rejected the charge that our package of measures would not have been planned, let alone implemented, but for the events of early December. We assert that those 17 measures amount to the most comprehensive package drawn up anywhere in the world to combat salmonella. Action has been taken at every point in the chain from imported feedingstuffs through to breeding and laying flocks. As the House knows, the egg market collapsed towards the end of last year. The

Government reluctantly decided that emergency measures were needed to stabilise the industry in such unprecedented circumstances.
The measures taken are the subject of the motion before the House today. The Select Committee concluded that my right hon. Friend the Minister deserved credit for putting together a skilfully constructed package. It was designed to restore stability to a disrupted market in which sales had fallen to around half normal levels. Hens, unlike men and machines, are not responsive to market forces in emergency conditions. They continue to lay eggs and require feeding even if demand for their product plummets—and, of course, feed is by far the major cost of egg production. As a result of the sudden and dramatic slump in demand, millions of eggs piled up at packing stations and many innocent producers, especially small ones, faced bankruptcy. Moreover, there was a real risk that a major part of the industry's productive capacity would be destroyed so that when demand recovered we would have had to rely on imports to meet it. That would not have been in the interests of British producers or consumers.
The Government therefore introduced two short-term schemes. The purpose of the egg scheme was to restore stability to the market by enabling packers to dispose of the accumulating surplus of eggs. The Government offered payments for eggs destroyed under Government supervision. Although the scheme was only at a safety-net level of 30p per dozen, broadly equivalent to the cost of feed, this rapidly put a floor in the market.
The complementary scheme, for the slaughter of hens, was designed to enable egg producers to cull younger birds in order to adjust production to the lower level of demand which might prevail for some time ahead. Again, payments were offered only at a modest safety-net level of £1·50 per bird, but this at least provided a way out for those producers who considered it prudent to plan for a lower level of output over the ensuing six to 12 months.
In the event, as the Select Committee report states, the package
was designed to put a bottom in the market and did just that".
My right hon. Friend the Minister was determined that there should be no half measures. If calm was to be restored to a disturbed market any intervention measures had to be on a bold enough scale to meet the maximum demands that could reasonably be placed upon them. That is why he deliberately provided for expenditure of up to a maximum of £19 million on the two schemes. The real key to the cost-effectiveness of the schemes, however, was not that figure but the levels of payment offered and the nature of the mechanism adopted. As soon as the scheme had succeeded in raising the market above the safety-net level of 30p per dozen eggs, this automatically removed the attraction of destruction.
I welcome the Select Committee's conclusion that the package was necessary and I am grateful for the complimentary remarks made about it. In the event, the schemes not only achieved their objectives but did so at minimal cost to the taxpayer precisely because of the way in which they were designed by my right hon. Friend the Minister.
Nevertheless, I do not wish to leave the House with the impression that those two short-term emergency measures have fully restored the market or resolved the severe economic problems of the industry. Egg sales are still only some 75–80 per cent. of normal and prices to producers,


though above the rock-bottom levels reached at one stage, are far from remunerative. A full return to normality depends on a full restoration of consumer confidence. I welcome the rising interest in consumer issues, which mirrors my own longstanding political beliefs. Power wielded by interest groups—trade unionists, lawyers, bureaucrats and producers of any description—should be fragmented or balanced by watchful Governments if they exceed the size of their boots. The president of the National Farmers' Union knows full well that my right hon. Friend the Minister and I are not his producers' poodles, but that appraisal may not yet have reached every out-station of the food and farming industry.
Consumer sovereignty is the key to the market place. It can be threatened by monopoly and cartels, trade protectionism masquerading as protection, or neglect of public health standards. The eagle eye of Government must always fall on such threats to consumers, however powerful, influential and persuasive they may be. The rights of consumers must be safeguarded by Government in any democracy where entrenched interests, public or private, can ignore the national good. Producers must adhere to them, and, in fairness, the vast majority of Britain's food industry realises their crucial significance. After all, no industry depends more upon repeat purchasing than does the food industry. To the few whose recklessness undermines the reputation of the many by putting public health at risk, however, my message is clear; clean up your act or face the full brunt of the law; and where the law falls short it is being strengthened.
In listening to, and acting on, legitimate consumer anxieties we must never be bamboozled by know-alls and busybodies dispensing flimsy advice. As my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare has already stressed, we should also beware of a few so-called independent experts. During the past few weeks, some people with political axes to grind have implied that the entire food chain in this country is part of a capitalist conspiracy designed to undermine public health. They merit our derision, they warrant our scorn and they deserve our anger.
Some romantics see all new developments in food science as potentially evil and want a return to a 19th century Utopia, but in reality the 19th century posed far greater hazards to health. Diets were restricted—and besides, Utopia never existed. Confidence in the safety of food is the Government's overriding concern. That is why we are taking so many measures to remove the risk of infection in eggs, even though this is recognised by the Committee to be very small. We have launched a campaign more rigorous and more comprehensive than has been launched anywhere else in the world to ensure the maximum possible degree of safety at every point in the chain from chicken breeder to chicken table. Twenty-seven years ago almost to the day President Kennedy sent a message to Congress that consumers should enjoy a right to safety, a right to be heard, a right to be informed and a right to choose. These rights are being and will continue to be safeguarded by this Conservative Government.

Dr. David Clark: First, I congratulate the Select Committee on a truly excellent report on salmonella in eggs. I also wish to commend the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) for

delivering his report to the House in a very lucid manner. In a sense, his speech today was reflected in the report of the Select Committee, because we saw the same lucidity in that. I congratulate him and the members of the Committee on producing this report so speedily. The Committees of the House have gained a fine reputation for producing reports which are clear and are understood by the ordinary person in the street. This is no exception and the members deserve tremendous credit for producing such a thorough, speedy and forthright report. Apart from the cursory, yet fundamental, criticism of the former Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie), they identified the villains of the piece—quite rightly—as the Government. I sincerely hope that the Government will heed the recommendations and the criticisms of the Select Committee.
The Government have completely mishandled the whole affair by their incompetence, excessive secrecy and delaying tactics. By their failure to act speedily they have allowed the problem to become exacerbated and as a result have put public health at risk. Since they were caught out, we have seen a flurry of Government activity in this sphere. Ministers, and the Minister today, repeatedly brag—that is the appropriate word—about the 17 measures that they have taken to control salmonella in poultry since December 1988. That begs the question of why they did not act sooner, because they have certainly been aware of the problem for months, possibly for years.
However, even the 17 formative measures leave much to be desired because, as the Minister told me in a parliamentary answer on 3 March, only two of the 17 measures have the backing of legislation and a further five are merely voluntary codes of conduct.
As the Minister knows and has acknowledged, none of the new changes needs primary legislation. Why, over the past few months, have the Government not come to the House and asked for legislation?

Mr. Ryder: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way and I do not wish to delay the progress of the debate. However, later, with the permission of the House, I shall answer the charge that the Government have not introduced the measures. We have introduced them. They are being introduced and are proving successful.

Dr. Clark: The Minister gives the game away. He should be frank with the House. He has not introduced the measures; he is going to do so, which is something quite different. The Government have no right to claim that the Minister has introduced 17 measures because, frankly, he has not.

Mr. Ryder: I do not wish to delay the House on this point, but I must put the hon. Gentleman straight. We have doubled the rate of inspections on protein processing plants since December, introduced stop provisions to prevent contaminated material entering the feedstuffs chain and served notice on a plant. We have imposed even more rigorous controls on the importation of animal protein, imposed restrictions on the sale of eggs for human consumption and served notices for the compulsory cleansing and disinfection of premises. I could continue.

Dr. Clark: The Minister could not continue and that is the point. He has given five out of the 17 measures. As he is going to reply, let me remind the Minister about the


third initiative which he mentioned. He said he will require protein processors to take samples from each day's production and notify MAFF, but the Government are still required to bring an order before the House before they can effect that measure.
The sixth initiative provides for the compulsory bacteriologist monitoring of all poultry-laying flocks. Under section 1 of the Animal Health Act 1981, that still needs to be ratified by the House. The seventh initiative requires the registration of breeding and laying flocks and the monitoring of hatcheries. It, too, awaits ratification under section I of the Animal Health Act.
The tenth initiative relates to the tightening up of hygienic handling of eggs, and is inoperative while we await new statutory action. The eleventh initiative tightens up the controls on rodents and is inoperative for the same reason.
The Minister could not have continued. He may be proposing to take action, but he has not yet taken it, which is the key point. The Minister should not mislead the House—and certainly not the nation—by saying that he already has such powers. He has not. He merely intends to take them.

Mr. Ryder: rose—

Dr. Clark: I shall be happy to give way to the Minister but it would perhaps be better if he waited until I have finished speaking and sought an opportunity to catch Mr. Speaker's eye.
There is no excuse for not bringing forward the necessary statutory instruments. Labour Members and, I am sure, Members of the Liberal and other minority parties would agree that we would facilitate the passage through the House of any Bill which protected public health. We have repeated to the Government—and I repeat today—that they have no excuse for not introducing such legislation.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: Is not the hon. Gentleman judging Government action in the light of what he now knows? At the time, what evidence did the Government or the hon. Gentleman have that would have led him to take the sort of action that the Government took last year? When should that action have been taken—many months ago or some years ago? Frankly, the evidence did not exist.

Dr. Clark: The hon. Gentleman intervenes in most of these debates, which is helpful to me because it gives me the opportunity to develop my arguments, and I shall certainly consider the detailed points that he made. I was simply replying to assertions repeatedly made by Ministers, and by the Minister this afternoon, that, since December 1988, the Government have introduced 17 measures. Those measures have not been introduced. The Government intend to introduce them and any leglislation in the form of statutory instruments will certainly be supported by the Opposition. [Interruption.] The Minister disagrees, but I warn him that the Government are responsible to the House and the Minister does not rule by edict. Statutory powers are laid down and the Minister knows that he must bring regulations to the House.
I shall now deal with the point raised by the hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith). The

Opposition's argument centres on the Government's slowness and delay in handling the food issue. Perhaps one of the most disgraceful factors was the Minister's failure to tackle the problem of salmonella food poisoning earlier—about which the hon. Member for Wealden asked.
Apparently, the Select Committee supports my view that if the Government had acted when they originally discovered the signs, they would not have found themselves in the ridiculous mess which followed the former Under-Secretary of State's comments last December. Also, they would have saved the taxpayer £3 million. I refer the hon. Member for Wealden to the conclusions of the Select Committee, which support the thrust of my argument.
What signs and evidence are there of salmonella poisoning? The report shows that evidence had been accruing since 1982, and that salmonella enteritidis—not just salmonella—had been increasing and had become a serious health problem. In July 1985 the Government's food safety research consultative committee reported some revealing points, which I shall quote in answer to the hon. Member for Wealden. Its report stated:
In 1983 more than 17,000 cases of bacterial food poisoning were reported in the United Kingdom. More than 80% of these involved Salmonella…The United Kingdom faces a serious and apparently deteriorating situation in regard to microbial food poisoning …This subject is highly-research sensitive.

Mr. Boswell: The hon. Gentleman quoted from the report that 80 per cent. of cases were related to salmonella. What proportion of that 80 per cent. was related to salmonella enteritidis, and what further proportion was related to salmonella enteritidis phage 4? It would be useful to have those figures.

Dr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman is usually so well informed that I am amazed that he asked that question. The minutes of evidence given to the Select Committee on which he served contain the answer on the first page:
The isolation of one serotype, salmonella enteritidis,has increased almost 13-fold between 1981 and October 1988".
I need not continue. I wish that the hon. Gentleman had studied the report before he deigned to intervene. That was our of character. He appears to have missed a vital piece of evidence.
We have evidence that the Government knew there was a problem as far back as 1982. It is interesting to note that the Department of Health was aware of the possible connection with eggs as far back as November 1987. For confirmation of that, I refer hon. Members to page 171 of the evidence.
Next, we discover that the Minister became clearer about the risk of eggs in May 1988. A month later, on 13 June, the DHSS called a meeting which included representatives of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and, interestingly enough, representatives from the industry. I say "interestingly enough" because of the strictures that the Minister directed at those representatives this afternoon.
The House will recall that the purpose of the meeting was
how to inform the NHS that recent outbreaks of salmonella food poisoning at two hospitals appeared to have been caused by raw eggs".
True to form, the Ministry of Agriculture and the industry decided once again to play down the matter. It was not until 29 July that hospitals were informed of the problem.


Even worse, we had to wait another month, until 26 August 1988, before the chief medical officer warned the general public—another example of the Government's secrecy and delaying tactics taking over official policy..
Finally, on 3 December, the former Under-Secretary of State for Health signalled an apparent change of approach when she said—I quote with care—
We do warn people now that most of the egg production of this country, sadly, is now infected with salmonella.
I draw the House's attention to the fact that the first word of the text of the Select Committee's report was "we".

Mr. Ron Davies: Not the royal "we".

Dr. Clark: Indeed not. We all get confused about "we" becoming grandmother these days.
The former Under-Secretary of State was clearly not speaking as an individual: she spoke on behalf of the Government. The fact that she said "we", not "I", was a clear sign that she was enunciating Government policy—

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: rose—

Dr. Clark: I have given way three or four times and I am anxious to make progress. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will catch Mr. Speaker's eye later.
The Select Committee was clearly correct to conclude that it found
no evidence to support Mrs. Currie's assertion".
We believe that she should have been allowed to qualify her original ambiguous statement, as she did in a letter to the Chairman of the Select Committee on 25 January. If she had done so at the time, much unnecessary suffering could have been avoided.
All this does not detract from the fact that the Minister of Agriculture has shown incredible complacency about the problem. When the Ministry found a farm selling eggs contaminated with salmonella in May 1988, it failed to take action and continued to allow eggs from a farm with a flock that was proven to be infected with salmonella to be sold to the general public. The Ministry issued no warnings to consumers. As the Minister reminds us, we had to wait until January of this year—nine months—before the Government implemented a clause under the Zoonoses Order to stop that sort of thing happening.
In evidence to the Select Committee the Minister justified not taking action sooner on the ground that only a small proportion of eggs was affected, which is no answer. Surely he must have known that people were dying of salmonella poisoning. As many as 35 died in 1987 from all types of salmonella, nine of them from salmonella enteritidis phage 4. Incidentally, the figures for 1988—they are now available up to the end of October—were considerably worse: there were 48 deaths from all types of salmonella and 23 from salmonella enteritidis phage 4.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: Can the hon. Gentleman tell me from the table of figures from which he is reading how many of the people who were supposed to have died from salmonella poisoning were suffering from other serious illnesses? I understand that some were suffering from terminal illnesses.

Dr. Clark: The hon. Lady is familiar with the report, which contains the evidence to the Select Committee on which she served with such distinction. I quoted figures from the report because, as the debate is about it, I thought

that the best way to proceed. I do not have the detailed figures that she seeks. Paragraph 7(3) makes the point that some of the patients suffered from other diseases.
The Minister knew that there were dangers. The hon. Lady has made the point more succinctly than I could. We are all aware that the problem is much more acute for vulnerable groups—the ill, the young and the elderly. That is the message of the report. The Chairman of the Select Committee made the point that for healthy people the problem is not nearly as great as it is for vulnerable people.
The Minister made great play today of how he would bring the wrath of the law down on people who were found transgressing and putting public health at risk. The record of such action, however, is not particularly good. I have already cited examples of farms that were proven to be sending out contaminated eggs. Twenty-one protein processing plants were found in 1987 to be sending salmonella-contaminated feed to egg producers. In spite of being warned, some of them continued to ply their trade; yet the Ministry refused to name them, so the poultry breeders and egg producers did not know that their suppliers were sending them salmonella-contaminated feed. The Minister also refused to prosecute—so his words today have a hollow ring. The Government have been weak on enforcing the legislation and thereby safeguarding public health.
Another hallmark of the Ministry's approach is obsessive secrecy. The hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart) seems to disagree, but I shall justify my remark. If the Ministry had not been so secretive, it would have been more able to tackle the problem. The result would have been that many of the egg producers and the workers in those plants would not have been placed in such a vulnerable position. They are in that vulnerable position because the Government were plainly caught unprepared and had no contingency plans. The fault is wholly the Government's and the Minister knows it.
The Minister quoted figures today showing that egg demand is about 75 per cent. of what it was. He knows that the irony is that in the months ahead, because of bankruptcies and redundancies, we may have to import eggs from abroad, which will come from flocks over which we have no control. That does not seem to be a sensible approach. Will the Minister work with the EC to ensure that other countries have as high a standard of poultry hygiene as possible? How does he intend to cope with the problem of the import of eggs from non-EC countries? How will he ensure that they are salmonella-free? As the Minister has pointed out rightly, we are dealing with an international problem. As a result of his own complacency and his having no contingency plans, he made the industry very vulnerable.
Before I leave the issue of secrecy, I must point out that the Minister announced last month that he would establish a committee on food safety to deal with salmonella and other issues, chaired by the eminent Professor Richmond. Since that flourish of trumpets, the Minister has become strangely quiet. Why is that? Who are the other members of the committee? Will he ensure that there are representatives from the consumers on that committee? We would find it completely unacceptable if, as is the case with the Food Advisory Committee, there was only one representative from a consumer organisation. On previous occasions, the Minister has claimed that there is more than one consumers' representative on the Food Advisory Committee, but he is wrong. There is only one such


representative, Mrs. Ann Strumper, representing the National Federation of Women's Institutes. All the other members who do not represent industries represent bodies such as the British Nutrition Foundation.

Mr. Ryder: No.

Dr. Clark: I have checked those facts, so the Minister may want to apologise afterwards. The British Nutrition Foundation is funded by levies from industry. Other committee members represent trading standards operations or other professional bodies. I repeat my charge—

Mr. Ryder: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Clark: I shall give way in a minute. There is only one representative from a consumer body on the Food Advisory Committee.

Mr. Ryder: If environmental health officers and others who enforce food safety are not representatives of consumers, who is?

Dr. Clark: The Minister does not understand my point. We are in no way challenging the integrity of the people who serve on that committee, but the point that I am trying to make is that they are there to represent viewpoints and organisations. They are not appointed because they are consumers and the only person who is appointed because she is a consumer is Mrs. Ann Strumper. The others are appointed because they are trading standards officers or representatives of industry. I hope that the new committee will contain more people from consumer organisations.
In a recent written answer the Minister confirmed that members of the advisory steering group on food surveillance are required to sign the Official Secrets Act 1911. Will the members of the new committee be required to sign it? I must remind the Minister that we are living in 1989, not 1939, and it would be for the benefit of consumers and the industry if we had far more freedom of information. An obsession with secrecy runs throughout the Minister's approach.
A further reflection of that secrecy is the Minister's habit of not being open with hon. Members. Last week, I tabled four simple, naive questions about hygiene standards in abattoirs in the United Kingdom to which I know the Minister has the answers on file. All I received was a holding answer that he would reply as soon as possible. That is an example of the Minister withholding information from the House. He knows that EC inspectors are in this country at present inspecting abattoirs which, by and large, are in a dreadful state.
I want to draw attention to the point made by the Select Committee about research and development. Has the Minister anything fundamental to tell us today about that crucial matter? I would like to think that, when dealing with a matter as important as that, the Minister would admit the error of his ways and would step up research into the complex problem of salmonella. In particular, is he prepared to work with industry as a partner to try to continue Dr. Mead's research project at Bristol? There are only two more years of field trials to go. The Minister

would have the support of Members of all parties if he made an announcement and took an initiative on that project.

Mr. Ryder: The hon. Gentleman has raised an important point and I want to quote from the evidence given to the Select Committee:
There is a number of companies in GB at the present time who are interested in applying the work done by Dr. Mead on their farms. I know of at least two organisations who want to apply competitive exclusion techniques: in part to see whether they can assist in the control of salmonella in their growing flocks.
Who said that? It was not a Government Minister, but the Government's chief veterinary officer.

Dr. Clark: I was under the impression that the Government's chief veterinary officer was paid by the Government, not by industry. Obviously, I was wrong. It seems to be privatisation gone too far when we find some private companies paying the salary of the Government's chief veterinary officer. The Minister must not play semantics with the House. The chief veterinary officer is an officer of the Ministry, as the Minister knows.
I repeat my question: is the Ministry prepared to go into partnership with industry, if necessary, to ensure that that vital research work, which has two years to go in field trials, is continued? The Minister knows as well as I do that industry is reluctant to pay the lot because it is worried that the independence of the study would be put in jeopardy if it funded the whole work. We are talking only about £300,000 for two years' work. The Minister and the Ministry have a terrible record. The Minister knows that over 2,000 posts have been lost from the Agricultural and Food Research Council and he also knows that the Government are shortly to propose the axing of a further 2,000 jobs in vital food and agriculture research and development. Will the Government recognise that that is a shortsighted approach? Will the Minister increase the number of research staff working on salmonella?
We tried to do some work, at short notice, on the Select Committee report. We looked at its recommendations about monitoring flocks and we believe that we need at least a further 50 members of staff in scientific work if the protections for which the Select Committee asked are to be carried out. It is imperative that if new research is carried out into salmonella money is not switched from other essential research work on bovine spongiform encephalopathy or listeria. To rob Peter to pay Paul is not an effective way to run research and development.
I note with interest that the Select Committee believes that the Government should actively discourage retailers from issuing misleading statements about eggs. Is the Minister aware that eggs are still being sold as being salmonella-free?

Mr. Martlew: Quite right.

Dr. Clark: If the hon. Gentleman listens, he will understand the difficulty. Will the Minister confirm that he has not issued any guidance to local authorities about the misleading nature of such claims? In the interests of consumer protection, will he not issue advice to them? This specific issue highlights the Government's failure to issue clear advice to consumers and local authorities about food matters and the need for a body such as a food standards agency to give independent advice to consumers.
I am sorry that the Minister has not seen fit today to give us even a preliminary assessment of the Government's reaction to the Select Committee report. We have been able to give our reaction. The Minister saw that—

Mr. Andy Stewart: Farming News.

Dr. Clark: Ah, now we know who writes in Farming News. That is very interesting.
The Minister has been dilatory. It would have been helpful to have more of a reply than we have received this afternoon. By not providing such a reply the Minister has added weight to our charge that the Government are in a state of complete confusion when it comes to handling the issue of food safety, and has confirmed our general view that procrastination and confusion are the order of the day. The Government do not know what they are doing, and meanwhile the health problem is getting worse and worse.
I urge the Minister to take more definitive action in the next few weeks, if he cannot do so today. If he brings orders before the House as soon as possible to protect the public health, he will have the support of Opposition M embers.

Mr. John Biffen: I begin my modest remarks with a declaration of interest. I am a non-executive director of J. Bibby and Sons plc, a subsidiary of Barlow Rand, whose activities include animal feed production.
Opening the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) said that it might be argued that the topic had had more than its fair share of attention. I do not think, however, that my hon. Friend or the Select Committee should be at all diffident about bringing it before the House. As my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has reminded us, questions of public health were very much an issue in the politics of the last century. We think of Disraeli or of Richard Cross—although my hon. Friend sounded more like a Gladstonian Liberal as he reeled off his consumerist aspirations in the Department. In any event, we are discussing public health today in support of a real and legitimate public interest. I congratulate the Select Committee on the temperate nature of its report, which I believe will be of great value to all who carry on the debate more publicly in the world outside. I also congratulate the Liaison Committee on choosing the matter for debate in the House.
I wish to raise four points. The first is of a quasi-constitutional character, and concerns whether ex-Ministers should appear before Select Committees. Departmental Select Committees are of such recent origin that they are all the time tentatively establishing parameters, not merely for their current work but for the work to be undertaken by successor Committees. The objective of a Select Committee in the last century—perhaps set up to investigate circumstances related to railway legislation—would have been to examine the public at large, not to examine other Members of Parliament. But when we set up the departmental Select Committees at the beginning of this Administration a convention was established whereby Ministers—who, by definition, were Members of Parliament—would appear before those Committees and give evidence. It was therefore necessary to find an appropriate and protective

framework. It was established, for example, that advice divulged by civil servants was not conventionally to be disclosed to Select Committees.
It seemed to me inevitable that at some stage there would be interest in parliamentary circumstances involving the resignation of a Minister, and it would have been inconceivable in common-sense terms for the Committee to carry out its work without seeking and securing evidence from my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie). She approached it with quasi-Trappist enthusiasm, but that is not really the point. The point is that the principle was established and. I am sure, is of value to the work of Select Committees. Our thanks are due to my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare and the Committee's members for their handling of a very delicate issue affecting the way in which this place conducts itself and, ultimately, how it is seen by the public.
A more difficult task is to comment on the behaviour of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health, and I do so with diffidence and sadness because he is a good friend of mine. In "Who's Who" he states that modern jazz is his recreation—he is the Satchmo of the Treasury Bench. He is also one member of the current Administration who actually looks as though he enjoys his job. I work on the basis that one Cabinet Minister found in Ronnie Scott's is worth 10 captive cultural apparatchiks at Glyndebourne. As a consequence, however, my right hon. and learned Friend's relaxed attitude has the potential to slide imperceptibly into the cavalier. I well understand his reactions when my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South made her compelling contribution to the debate about food hygiene. On 5 December, he told the House:
It may be that many hon. Members are a little envious of her natural gift for obtaining publicity. This is not the first occasion on which she has obtained great publicity on a serious matter".—[Official Report, 5 December 1988; Vol. 143, c. 20.]
These are all matters of judgment, not of political morality. There is no more to it than the grubby business of being a street politician getting by from one problem to the next. From the day she arrived in the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South should have worn a label saying that she was a political health hazard. She was a person of extraordinary genius, gifted in almost every quality except that of being a subordinate, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State found that the matter in question had been given a most powerful lift by her television interview. It is easy to speak with the benefit of hindsight, but I say bluntly that that was a political situation and not a technical contribution to a discussion on health education and public health generally. Although it was understandable that Sir Donald Acheson, the chief medical officer, should have been propelled into being master of ceremonies for the next few days, I think that that judgment was mistaken.
It is a matter of careful political discrimination to decide how senior members of the public service should be used in such circumstances, and it is often a considerable political hazard. There has been an increasing tendency for public servants to be put into the position of being more overtly political in speech and behaviour than would have been the case a generation ago. That forms a kernel of seriousness in the wider issue. Although I feel that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State was wrong


to hold back from the circumstances for so long, I do not feel that he should be the subject of serious censure. Of course not—it is the kind of mistake that we all make on a day-to-day basis in the conduct of our political lives. Nevertheless, the Select Committee was absolutely right to identify that point and to make that judgment, and I wholeheartedly concur with its convictions.
On the subject of research and the comments in paragraph 41 of the report, I had not heard of the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) as a great agricultural debater and he seemed to me to have a preference for the sword rather than the ploughshare today. I should have thought that there must be broad general agreement across the House with the recommendations of the Select Committee and, indeed, with the tentative response from the Government. Nothing can be definitive at this point, but I am sure that there is widespread anxiety that we should look again at the funding of research in the industry to see what is a proper and legitimate public commitment, especially in trying to establish the mode of transmission of salmonella and the whole question of bacterial and viral infections in farm animals. I do not think that this is an area in which one can be dogmatic, but there is a long and legitimate tradition of collective interest and responsibility in the funding of research into these matters. I hope that my hon. Friend will not think it too much of a streak of Tory paternalism if I suggest that we look at the present levels of funding to see whether they can be improved.
Finally—this is the point at which I have a modest direct interest to declare—I should like to talk about the regulations that the Government must secure to have more effective control over a healthy food supply throughout the chain. Of course, I suspect that the area of most intractable difficulty is domestic hygiene and what goes on in the house, where one can do little more than constant exhortation. Government can take action, it seems to me, for example, in regulations concerning animal feed, and I very much welcome the recommendations made in this report in paragraphs 62 and 63. The regulations which have to be made must, first of all, be enforceable, and they must be enforced. That is true in relation to both on-farm mixers and compounders. Secondly, in seeking effective regulations, we have to ensure that they can be applied equally to imported as well as home-produced products.
Those are my four points. I end as I began by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare and his Committee on the report. There is always a tendency to try to fashion out of a fairly scrawny acorn a massive constitutional oak. I shall not do that, but I say to my hon. Friends and to Opposition Members that in the past decade or more we have seen a situation in which increasingly the power of the Prime Minister dominates the Cabinet and the Executive dominates the House. The traditional means whereby this House has sought to balance the Executive by debates and the normal forms of processing legislation are becoming less and less effective. I do not yet assert that Select Committees can tangibly help to restore that balance, but the process is well started and I offer congratulations to my hon. Friend and to the members of the Select Committee

Mr. Elliot Morley: I start by echoing some of the words of praise for the Chairman of the Select Committee. It has been said to me that it is very hard indeed for 11 people from three different parties to come to a conclusion. However, the reason why the Committee did compile its report so speedily and in such depth and, in fact, came to a unanimous conclusion, was that it recognised the very serious nature of the salmonella scare, the effect that it was having on the industry and the need to react quickly to determine not only what the real threats were but to examine the way that the Government had handled it at every level.
Not everyone saw that in the same light, and I refer in particular to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie), in terms of the assistance which she gave to the Committee. It has been said that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South did the country a service in bringing this matter to the public's attention. That in many ways is undeniably true; she was, in fact, the catalyst which led to this inquiry and allowed the Committee to uncover a number of issues, whereas the Government, shall we say, did not give a sufficient response. However, it must also be said that her comments were purely accidental. They were not made out of any great concern for the consumer, and when she had the chance to clarify them, she did not take it nor, during the course of the Committee's inquiry, did she join the Committee to state what she knew about the serious deficiencies in the way the Government were tackling the serious problems. I do not believe that her role in all this should be acclaimed as being of any great assistance to the consumer. In fact, because she refused to clarify her statements, £3 million has gone on compensation which could have been spent in more productive areas, for example, on research or other medical areas.
At that point, I must take issue with the Secretary of State for Health over the way that he dismissed the criticisms of the Committee as they refer to him personally. If we accept that the former junior Minister had to resign over the mistake that she made—we know that it was a mistake because of the Committee's inquiries—we should also accept that the Secretary of State for Health should take his share of the blame as part of the collective responsibility of government, as he was her immediate superior. It does the Secretary of State no credit whatsoever to dismiss those comments, nor does it do the Department of Health any credit that there is no Minister here today to take part in this debate. I believe that Ministers are abrogating their responsibility in this affair by not being here to discuss it.
There is one issue in the report that I would like to expand on in depth, and that is whether free-range eggs are safer than battery eggs. The Committee found that the evidence suggested there was slightly more risk with free-range eggs than with battery eggs. This was because the independent scientific adviser pointed out that in free-range systems the eggs are more likely to be laid on the ground, where there is a higher risk of faecal contamination. There are also problems with droppings of wild birds and shared drink water, with the risk of cross-contamination. Those are very valid points, which I do not criticise in any way. However, since the report has been published I have had the opportunity to make further inquiries. I should point out that, of course, the Committee


was not given the responsibility of looking into whether free-range eggs were safer than battery eggs, but I would like to take this opportunity to evaluate the differences between them.
The evidence suggests that there is no greater risk with either system. I have seen a report by the Institute of Animal Physiology and Genetic Research at the Edinburgh research station by Dr. Hughes, who carried out detailed studies into the incidence of eggs being cracked when laid. He came to the conclusion that it depends on the laying box being used and he demonstrated in his work that there could be a lower rate in certain free-range systems than in battery systems. His argument is that cracked eggs are more of a risk than external faecal contamination. He also pointed out that the incidence of cracked eggs depends very much on the age of the bird; as the egg-laying hen gets older, the shells get thinner and therefore the incidence of cracking is higher.
I have also seen a paper by Mandy Hill, a MAFF scientist, who looked at the alternatives to battery systems, such as free-range, straw yards, deep-litter, aviaries and percheries. In July 1981 the former Select Committee on Agriculture recommended that the battery system of egg production be phased out within five years. I am sorry to say that few steps have been taken in that direction. Quite apart from the fact, which few would dispute, that the battery system is an unattractive way of handling animals, it could be argued that there are inherent risks of cross-contamination because of the constant proximity of birds. There are more humane ways of producing eggs. They may be more expensive, but people are now prepared to pay slightly more for products that are produced in an environmentally sensitive and, as in this case, more humane way.
Mandy Hill discovered that the perchery system had clear advantages, and that is confirmed in a paper by McLean, Baxter and Michie of the Scottish farm buildings investigation unit which points out that the perchery system has clear welfare advantages, providing such things as dust baths and wider areas in which birds can move around. In addition, the collection of eggs from Astroturf cuts down the number of cracked eggs in comparison with the battery system.
The 1981 Select Committee recommended that more research should be done and that funds should be allocated to look into more humane ways of producing eggs which avoided contamination. It recognised that any restrictions on egg production must be in the EEC context. Restrictions on the way in which birds are reared and eggs produced would be grossly unfair to our poultry farmers if continental egg producers could export their eggs produced at lower cost using a less humane system. The report suggested that there should be a block on such imports or that agreement should be reached within the EEC.
The 1981 Select Committee also suggested that financial incentives should be given to poultry producers who wanted to experiment with more humane systems, and I concur with that. The Select Committee pointed out that the Brambell committee also recommended phasing out the battery system.
The joint working party of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Department of Health and the egg industry considered whether greater risks were attached to free-range or battery eggs. It concluded:
Initial thoughts that the problem"—

that is, salmonella—
may be more closely associated with free-range eggs are now difficult to support in view of the information available in incident one where salmonella enteritidis exposure occurred in the contents of two eggs not in the shell.
It goes on:
We ought to be very careful about blaming the free range system for having a higher rate of incidence.
I concur with that.
The Select Committee made its recommendations on information available within a narrow context, but there is no scientific basis for suggesting that free-range eggs are more at risk from salmonella contamination than battery eggs. There is significant evidence to suggest that the battery system is an inhumane way of producing eggs and should be phased out in line with the recommendations of the 1981 Select Committee's report.
The Select Committee dealt with cuts in research and I wholeheartedly concur with its recommendations. However, since that report was published I have received correspondence from scientists working in research centres in Bristol, one of which is faced with cuts. Let me quote from one letter, from a gentleman whom I shall not name because I did not ask his permission to do so. I do not want to embarrass him, particularly at a time when people working within various Government institutions in the public sector are often threatened for speaking out even when to do so is in the public interest. It says:
Quality and safety are foremost amongst the considerations of the scientific programme and, as you may know, the Laboratory houses the United Kingdom's leading group working on the problem of eliminating salmonella infection from eggs and poultry. However, since Government and AFRC policy on food research, especially on commodities such as meat, milk, eggs, poultry, etc. is one of contraction and retrenchment to ill-defined 'generic' research, it seems inevitable that such necessary 'public good' work will not take place. Clearly, the fragmented, introspective sectors of the agriculture and food industries are not capable of taking the broad 'public good' view, if left to themselves, and they obviously need strong direction and support from Government acting through the country's R and D agencies.
It is clear from the evidence that the Select Committee received that, far from receiving clear support and direction from the Government, Britain's agricultural and food research institutions are going through a period of cuts which is undermining the basis of research into food quality and safety.
The letter goes on:
To take the opposite view, as is present policy, and in effect to throw responsibility for the nation's health and safety on to commercially-minded organisations, is clearly as dangerous as it is ineffective.
The Minister read from evidence to the Select Committee given by the chief veterinary officer about Dr.Mead's research programme at Bristol. However, he failed to read on to the point where I challenged the chief veterinary officer to say whether any commercial firm had signed a contract to pick up Dr. Mead's research. His answer was clearly no. That had not happened. Even if it does happen, it is irresponsible for the Government to throw open research which is so concerned with the public good to the whims of private industry without adequate funding or without ensuring that information will remain widely available. The package of cuts proposed by the AFRC puts at risk programmes such as that on meat identification which is designed to identify meats such as horse and kangaroo in meat products. To end such


programmes in the run-up to 1992 when there will be much more open access to such products seriously puts at risk people's health.
Another environmentally-friendly programme that will be put at risk as a result of the cuts is on the replacement of pesticides in crop control by the use of nematode worms. Green issues seem to be the order of the month, as dictated by the Prime Minister. The irony is that the Prime Minister visited that programme and saw it in operation, but now it has received the kiss of death and is to be ended. That has happened in the approach to 1992 when all our European rivals are giving more funding to their agricultural research and development. In contrast, we are giving such research less funding and throwing it open to the whims of a fragmented industry which is in no position to pick up such research programmes.
The Select Committee has given a balanced and well-considered report. The Minister has boasted today about the Government's 17-point programme, but it is fair to point out that the Government have done more in the course of the Select Committee's inquiry than has been done in the last decade in poultry research and salmonella control. That in itself underlines the value of the Select Committee and the important role that it has played in this whole affair. I also recognise what was said by the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen), that the Select Committee had to go to certain lengths to compel the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South to come before the Committee. I hope that that has now set a precedent so that when Select Committees are trying to do their work for the benefit of the whole community they are given the support that they deserve from all hon. Members.
As regards the Government's policy on agricultural research and development and the cuts, I hope that the Government recognise that they are making mistakes. They have arrived at the stage where the cuts are biting so deep that they are putting the consumers' health at risk. I hope that they will decide to turn away from the ideological blind alley that they are in, and will put the needs of the consumer first.

6 pm

Sir Hal Miller: I follow very closely the remarks of the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), particularly in relation to the lack of difference in liability to salmonella between free-range and battery eggs. He has done us a service. He followed my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) in supporting a research programme, although it was not clear from his rather general remarks which particular direction he wished the research to take.
I join with others in congratulating the Select Committee on Agriculture and its Chairman on the selection of their report for debate. It is only the second report of the Agriculture Committee to be debated, but only one in 10 is debated. Thanks to research done in a publication on the new Select Committees, in a chapter by Geoffrey Lock, I find that up to the 1982–83 Session only six out of 193 reports were debated. Those reports contain 4,400 pages and cost £5 million to produce. In that period there were 80 overseas visits and 180 visits in this country. Since the 1985–86 Session, only six departmental committee reports have been debated, two from the Select

Committee on the Environment, and seven concerned with House of Commons matters, occupying the attention of some 150 hon. Members who have put over 100,000 questions. I mention this not because the work of the Select Committees is part of this debate but to put the report into context.
I cannot say that I congratulate the Liaison Committee on choosing this report for debate because, as I have listened to it, the argument seems not to have advanced much since the matter was last debated, on 19 December. I have referred to my notes for that occasion. What I have heard convinces me that the Select Committee has performed a valuable role in ensuring that some of the measures mentioned by my hon. Friend the Minister are pushed forward or have been put into effect, despite the claims of Opposition Members, but nothing has been added to the argument.
I hope that I shall not be misinterpreted—I have come to praise the report, not to bury it, but my praise is perhaps fainter than some of the Select Committee members would have wished. I welcome the recognition of the work done by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in introducing codes of practice, the market support scheme and measures of control and monitoring, although I shall return to that in a question to my hon. Friend the Minister shortly, and I welcome even more warmly the recognition that the risk to healthy people from eating eggs is slight indeed.
Why, then, did I suggest that my praise might be slightly muted? I venture to disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin), the Chairman, when he said that he believed that the function of Select Committees was that of a post mortem body—a felicitious turn of phrase, as my hon. Friend the Minister said in his comments on the report. I believe that the best reports anticipate problems, look forward and present possible solutions, but this report has been largely retrospective. Perhaps it has not been retrospective enough. My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare is that rare species, a gamekeeper turned poacher. I have been refreshing my memory about some of the things that he said when he was at the Ministry of Agriculture on the subject of consumer protection and the poultry industry. I would not, of course, wish to embarrass him by referring him to his speeches of 7 November 1980, March 1981 and July 1981, but he certainly took the view then, if I may summarise his comments, that we should not go too far in introducing monitoring and regulations. There are certain passages which, as a good Conservative, he would still own, but of particular interest is the one of 7 November 1980.

Mr. Wiggin: Another Whips' Office brief.

Sir Hal Miller: I am quite capable of doing my own research.
My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare, when he was a Minister, was talking about consumer protection, with specific reference to eggs and the marking of egg packs and the codes thereon, and I agree with what he said. He stated:
In discussions with Brussels my officials have been seeking amendments with a view to achieving the changes that would be in the best interest of those most concerned. In addition, they will seek some relaxation of the present very restrictive regulations regarding the information that can be put on egg packs."—[Official Report, 7 November 1980; Vol. 991, c. 1649.]


There are other, similar passages. Why, then, are my praises muted?

Mr. Wiggin: I am deeply impressed by the profundity of my hon. Friend's research. It seems to go beyond that normally carried out by a Back Bencher, but I will not go into that. Will my hon. Friend accept that even the severest critic on the Opposition Benches acknowledges that the problem of salmonella enteritidis inside whole eggs did not come to anyone's notice before 1982, by which time I had happily been translated to other spheres?

Sir Hal Miller: Of course. It was only out of natural admiration for my hon. Friend, perhaps tinged with slight envy as I myself have never held ministerial office, that I wished to refresh my memory of the wisdom and authority of his utterances in that post. He is correct to say that the incidence of this particular salmonella came to our notice after he had, unfortunately, left the Treasury Bench, to the regret of many of us, including myself.
I wish that the Committee had felt able to give itself the time to look a little more widely and to take account of what is happening in our partner states of the Community, because it is believed that this disease is widespread and has perhaps a greater incidence in certain other member states than in this country. That raises a matter to which the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) referred briefly—the question of imported eggs.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: If my hon. Friend has read the evidence taken by the Select Committee, he will know that those points were raised and questions were asked about egg imports. He is right that there is a serious problem in some parts of Europe, and we do not want to put our egg producers out of business only to import eggs from a place where we cannot control the standards of production and hygiene.

Sir Hal Miller: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend and happily compliment the diligence of the Committee, but its recommendations lack a specific course of action with regard to the important matter of imports. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will reassure the House.
I would have wished the Select Committee to look a little further ahead, not merely in regard to the research to which it drew attention, but in terms of how some of the measures that it recommended should be implemented. I wonder whether there are adequate vets to carry out all the proposed functions, and whether any consideration was given to the proposals by the veterinary colleges, whose authoritative research would have been welcomed and respected. It might have been possible for the Select Committee to take more account of the role of local authorities, and not just of the number of vacant posts for environmental health officers about which we hear so much from the Opposition.
I would have hoped for some reference to the slaughter policy and compensation to farms affected by zoonoses orders. I hope that the Committee will forgive me if I ask my hon. Friend the Minister about the scope of a zoonoses order. Will it apply to an entire farm or to an individual poultry house? That is a significant point for many producers. I should be grateful if the Minister would let us know.
There is also concern about how the monitoring and inspection measures are to be paid for. In the case of other

animal diseases the Government contribute towards the cost of monitoring and inspection. Egg producers are anxious about that aspect.
In conclusion, in whose interest has the debate been? It is not clear that it has helped the housewife, although the report and the work of the Select Committee brought about a response from the Ministry and was very useful. However I do not think that the housewife is better informed as a result of today's debate. I am particularly concerned that caterers have still not reacted positively to the measures that have been taken. Down on the farm, the position is still serious. Large producers are still experiencing prices some 15 per cent. below break-even, and there is concern that the recently determined slaughter compensation prices are inadequate and will undermine the confidence of suppliers, particularly in the matter of chick placings. Those suppliers will be concerned about the viability of customers who might be exposed to the incidence of disease, which could lead to a serious shortage of eggs and consequent high prices. The smaller producers face retail sales down by 20 per cent. and sales to catering firms down by 60 per cent.
I am still left wondering why the Liaison Committee chose this subject for debate. I cannot see whom it benefits, except perhaps the Opposition, who have nothing to offer—the idea that they had any interest for the consumer is laughable to those who remember their commitment to the coal producers or any other producing interest and their total disregard of any interest held by consumers of any product of nationalised industries. In that context, I must tell the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) that the article in Farming News provides the answer. It says:
Every night the members of the Labour party interested in agriculture (all three of them) must go down on their knees and praise the Lord for salmonella, listeria, Professor Lacey and BSE. These plagues have come as manna from heaven to a party which is still waiting for its policy 'revue' before it knows what it is supposed to think about agriculture.

Mr. Geraint Howells: Many years ago I was a member of the Ponterwyd young farmers' club. One wintry evening I was chosen to speak on behalf of the club at a public meeting of the young farmers' movement. We were not told the subject until we reached the hall. On the platform I was given a piece of paper which said, "You are given three minutes to speak, if it is your wish, and the subject is eggs." Being a young man, I found it very difficult to find any words on the subject, but I said, "If you eat a boiled egg or a fried egg for breakfast, you will lead a healthy life and you will be able to work on the farm for the rest of your days."
Forty years later I am confronted with the same problem. We are confined to saying a few words about eggs. But I have a little more to say this time and I shall speak for longer than three minutes. First, I should like to endorse the sentiments expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House on the excellent way in which the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) and his colleagues dealt with the situation, their urgency and the way in which they presented their report. I shall go a little further than the hon. Members who have paid tribute to the hon. Gentleman by saying he did an excellent job on television when the industry was at a crossroads and when the Government were in troubled waters in regard to eggs. The hon. Gentleman gave an assurance to producers and consumers that he would look into the matter and make


recommendations to the Government. Personally and on behalf of my colleagues I should like to thank him for what he did.
Tonight, what has been missing from the debate is a sense of proportion. A few unguarded words from a junior Minister caused great havoc in the industry and panic among the buying public.
The Government must restore confidence in the industry and reassure consumers that they can eat eggs without fear. It is vital that they do so, for two reasons. First, eggs are an important part of our daily diet. They are cheap and easy to prepare. It follows that the egg and poultry industry must be encouraged, and be protected from unfair competition and unforeseen costs resulting from the need to introduce new and safer production methods. Unfair competition will arise unless and until the high standards that are to apply in this country are matched throughout the EEC. Raising standards will cost a great deal of money, and may mean a number of producers going out of business. Consequently, imported eggs will be at a lower price. There must be safeguards against that both for the sake of the consumer and to protect the industry's future.
The industry's future cannot ultimately be left to market forces because, clearly, they will operate against the best interests of consumers. It is the Government's responsibility to ensure that the industry survives in good shape. It is the Government's responsibility also to ensure that the level of funding available for research and development is adequate. The agriculture industry as a whole has been apprehensive about research cuts, and many parts of it fear that important areas of research will be starved of necessary funds. A great deal of work and money is necessary to ensure the eventual eradication of salmonella in eggs. If we are to succeed, cash limits should have no part to play in that objective.
Sufficient money must also be made available to provide monitoring facilities, because the industry should not be expected to pay for them. The Select Committee has done a worthwhile job, and its recommendations should be accepted by right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House. At the same time, it must be remembered that the egg industry has gone through a traumatic period. Even today, egg sales are down by 15 per cent., with producers losing £20 million since the beginning of December, and the national flock being depleted by about 2·5 million birds.
Monitoring and improved production methods will be extremely expensive, and many smaller producers may feel unable to carry on, so the Government must be prepared to be more generous with compensation, and more understanding of the higher costs involved in developing the industry along the right lines. The health of the consumer must always be a priority, but that cannot be achieved without a positive Government commitment.
I make a final appeal to the Government not to dismantle the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food because of what has happened. The Ministry has served the farming industry and consumers well over many decades. I read with regret that the Labour party intends dismantling the Ministry; I read in the press that the Labour party is proposing a new Ministry of Food and Farming.

Dr. David Clark: I wish to make the position plain, because I do not think that there is any deep disagreement between us. We believe that all food production ought to fall within the responsibility of one Ministry—the Ministry of Food and Farming, say. It is imperative that, from the plough to the plate, food production is in the hands of one Ministry. Also, the consumer must be protected by an independent food standards agency. However, I emphasise that we believe still in having one Ministry covering both food and farming.

Mr. Howells: I listened to the hon. Gentleman's comments with interest. I shall not comment, because it is now up to the agriculture industry to decide whether, after hearing what the hon. Gentleman had to say, there is to be a change in the nature of the Ministry.

Mr. Ryder: Perhaps I may be of assistance to the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells) because, by happy chance, I have a copy of the press statement of 17 February issued by the hon. Members for South Shields (Dr. Clark) and for Livingston (Mr. Cook) setting out their views on the subject, which stated:
The Foods Standards Agency would be independent of Ministers but responsible to Parliament.
If the agency is to be independent of Ministers but responsible to Parliament, which Ministers will answer questions about it?

Mr. Howells: I am very sorry for raising a thorny issue. We had better leave it at that for the time being.
I have a further question for the Minister. Will he give a helping hand to the agriculture industry, which has been financially clobbered because of present Government policies? Unless something is done, many small farmers will go out of business. Please give a helping hand before it is too late.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: It is always a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells), because we share a common concern in respect of many matters that he has raised in previous debates. I echo his remarks concerning the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, which has served the country well. A very good case would have to be made for dismantling it—and it is not a case that I would anyway support.
During my life time, I have followed the advice that the hon. Gentleman gave to young farmers all those years ago, because I was brought up on the maxim, "Go to work on an egg". Unless I had a lightly-boiled egg for breakfast every morning, I would not have the strength to stand up and face you, Mr. Speaker, in my efforts to participate in debates.
Putting frivolity to one side, we are debating a serious subject. When the Select Committee on Agriculture was appointed at the beginning of this Parliament, it could not have foreseen that it would be catapulted into the public eye by the subject matter of the inquiry on which it reported in the middle of the salmonella crisis just before Christmas, caused by the unclarified statement of a former junior Health Minister.
I shall address myself to one or two points arising from the Select Committee's report, which was published last week—not least, the package of measures introduced by


my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. There is no doubt that urgent action was needed not only to restore public confidence but to prevent financial disaster among British egg producers, who would otherwise have been put out of business or placed in serious financial difficulties. I reiterate my earlier remark concerning the importance of our domestic egg industry and the benefits that it brings to this country, which would have been jeopardised if egg producers had been forced out of business by last December's crisis.
I was often dismayed by those people who commented publicly about the so-called strength of the agricultural lobby, saying that consumers' interests were being overridden in the interests of egg producers. My belief is that consumers' best interests are virtually the same as those of producers—because unless producers heed consumer demand there will be no market for their goods and they will be put out of business.
The fact is often overlooked that farmers and their families are also consumers. Generally they are not in the business of producing food that they would not expect their families and neighbours to eat. They have been somewhat maligned in some press comments.
I do not know what advantage it is to the consumer to put egg producers out of business. As we know, imported eggs have many problems. No Government could control the standards of their production and few guarantees could be given. It would not serve this country well for eggs to be imported. We must watch out for that.
It is also true that no food can be made absolutely safe or sterile. Cast-iron guarantees cannot be given. We found in our report that many of the food poisoning cases that we have heard about were directly due to poor storage, cross contamination and unhygienic practices in private domestic kitchens and in catering establishments. Much work needs to be done to tighten up standards, especially in catering establishments.
Salmonella enteritidis is behaving in every way identically to other salmonellas. There is no reason to believe, and no evidence to suggest, that its incidence will not grow to a peak and fall back, as other salmonellas have done, and then be replaced by another strain. I am not in any way being complacent, because one case of salmonella enteritidis poisoning is one case too many. I speak as someone who has suffered from acute salmonella poisoning, although I hasten to add it was not enteritidis. Some years ago, on my return from India I was extremely ill. I lost a lot of weight so that the buxom woman hon. Members see before them was a mere skeleton. I would not wish that condition on even my worst enemy.
Many of the problems about food that are highlighted in the media these days are due to the policy of successive Governments of providing cheap food. The subsidies that have been given to the producers, although not to egg producers, first took the form of deficiency payments and then, following our entry into Europe, the CAP. All those have been indirect subsidies to consumers to provide a steady supply of temperate foodstuffs at moderate prices, and to iron out the highs and lows of food production that can never be predicted, depending as they do on our unpredictable weather. Egg production has always been unsubsidised, but some of its overheads depend on the policy of the CAP, in the cost of cereals.
This cheap food policy has also been responsible for the development of our intensive livestock and agricultural systems. Farmers have always worked within parameters

set by the Government. Therefore, both after and during the war when temperate foodstuffs were in short supply, the agricultural community responded magnificently to the challenge to produce more. It was no fault of theirs that the bureaucracy that is Europe was made impotent to act by the political pressure maintained effectively by the small and inefficient farmers of France and Germany.
Our agriculture industry, including egg producers, needs not a kick up the backside but a pat on the back for its achievements as good custodians of the countryside, and for producing our supplies of temperate foodstuffs, thereby saving on our balance of payments. That subject is very much in the public eye, and being debated generally at present.
The difficulties that have faced our egg producers have been typical of those in an industry that by its very nature is fragmented. We know that 30 million eggs are consumed each day and that 68 per cent. of the flock is held on 400 holdings. The remainder are dispersed among 40,000 smaller enterprises, many of which supply eggs directly to the public at farm gates or through a local outlet. The big five retail chains are supplied by the largest egg producers. Stringent checks are made on the quality of the product. It should be said that the food chain in this country is far superior in every way in its high standards. It compares very well with the much lower standards of other European countries.
However, there is a genuine cause for concern that, through the Government changing the policy on research and getting the private sector to take up near market research, certain projects will fall through lack of funding. It is very difficult to unravel the difference between research into the public good and research that has an imminent commercial application. That difficulty is heightened because of the fragmentation of the egg-producing industry.
I suggest that somehow the egg producers must get together on research so that it can be funded by the industry as a whole, possibly through a levy. It is not for me to suggest the means, but it must be funded by the industry as a whole rather than by one or two major companies. It is obvious that developments on, say, a test for salmonella enteritidis to be used on the farm should be readily available to all those selling eggs to the general public, including small producers. Such a test and such an assurance would greatly restore confidence in the quality of the product.
I believe, too, that national standards must be set by the Government. All hon. Members will have experienced the diversity of ways in which regulations are implemented by local authorities' environmental health officers and meat inspectors. There is no set standard to which they must adhere. That mistake must be addressed. Such a measure will be unpopular because it will cost taxpayers money. Indeed, consumers must realise that they will be expected to pay more for a higher quality product.
The priorities of my parents' generation were having a roof over their heads, clothes to keep them warm and good food. There were no other competing priorities in those days such as mortgage repayments or repayments on luxury goods. Many of those, such as washing machines, which are often of foreign manufacture, or video recorders, are considered no longer to be luxury goods.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Before my hon. Friend, who was a distinguished member of the Select


Committee, leaves the question of paying more for the best possible inspection standards, could she share with the House its thoughts on section VII of the report, which the Minister completely ignored? However much we pay for inspection of UK production, is it not the case that if imports are not properly inspected the consumer will not get the protection, however much is spent on inspecting our own output?

Mrs. Winterton: My hon. Friend makes a very good and valid point, which I could not better. He is absolutely right. In my remarks about the standards of food production, I was also saying indirectly that if people do not want eggs produced from the battery system they must pay more for eggs produced in a different way. There is a cost for all of this.
My hon. Friend makes a valid point about ensuring that the production standards of food, anything else that is introduced into this country are as high in the exporting countries as they are here. More often than not, the standards of this country are far better than those of our European counterparts. But times have changed. Surely good food must be considered as one of the highest priorities in household expenditure.
Many people have tried to calculate the risks of eating an egg contaminated by salmonella enteritidis. It has been compared by some as having the same risk as being struck by lightning. Indeed, the risks to people walking down Oxford street doing the shopping one afternoon must be far greater.
Although the scare about the wholesomeness of eggs for normally healthy people has been an over-exaggerated storm in an egg cup, many lessons from it will have to be learned by the Government, and the report sets those out in a clear and unambiguous way. I recommend the report to hon. Members and respectfully suggest to those who hold power in their hands that its constructive criticism and recommendations will be ignored at their peril. The Government will emerge with credit if, for once, they listen to wise counsel and act on it.
Unlike the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), I do not expect a change of policy to be announced after this debate, but the Government should reflect on the recommendations of the report and bring forward measures to effect the necessary change.

Mr. Eric Martlew: Little did I know when I wrote to the Chairman of the Select Committee on 6 December last asking that we investigate the statements made by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) the amount of media attention that the subject would attract. Nor did I envisage the sort of political shock wave that would be created. This has become a high political issue, though I do not kid myself that I had anything to do with it.
I am surprised that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South is not in her place for this debate. The Select Committee report opens its introduction with the comment by the hon. Lady:
We do warn people now that most of the egg production of this country, sadly, is now infected with salmonella.
That was why the Select committee met. It resulted in 400 pages of evidence and a report containing many

recommendations. Ministers have stood at the Dispatch Box on many occasions attempting to answer questions put by hon. Members in all parts of the House.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) criticised the Government strongly on some issues, yet the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South is not in her place for this debate. That reflects the fact that the hon. Lady not only held the Select Committee in contempt but appears to hold this House in contempt. The least she should have done was to appear. Although it is not cricket to criticise people in their absence, I regret that she is not here because one would have expected her to turn up today.
I enjoyed being a member of the Select Committee and I echo the comments that have been made about its Chairman, the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin). He was fair and he represented the Committee well when he appeared on television. He presented the case excellently today. He was not entirely fair to two of the witnesses. Dr. Lang and Professor Lacey. Their view differed greatly from that of the Chairman, but they had every right to express it and it would have been better had he not criticised them so much today.
We produced a unanimous report, and I appreciate the support that was given by Conservative Members. It is easy for Opposition Members to criticise the Government of the day; it is our job to do that. It is more difficult for Government supporters to produce a report which is in some ways critical of the Government. Another reason why that proved possible was that Labour Members on the Select Committee took a responsible attitude. We were all after the facts and we were not interested in scoring political points. We have reached a conclusion that gives almost a good clean bill of health to this country's eggs.
The egg producers' representatives, as distinct from the egg producers, did not do their cause any good. They were, and still are, divided. The Minister criticised a producers' organisation. Neville Wallace, the director-general of the British Poultry Federation, did not do his case much good. Those representatives gave a complacent view to the Select Committee. They suggested that there was really nothing wrong with egg production, when we knew that there was a problem. The view that people could continue to eat raw eggs, as advocated by Mr. Wallace to the Select Committee, was rather irresponsible.
Nor did the representatives of the Retail Consortium do themselves any good. When, last week, we debated food in general, I referred to that body, as a result of which it sent me a scathing letter, and I gather it sent a copy to the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare. It claimed that I had misquoted the consortium.
I was also sent a copy of a letter that the consortium had sent to the Government complaining that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South had said that all or most egg production in this country was contaminated with salmonella. In fact, she referred to "egg production." Here was the Retail Consortium, supposedly a responsible body, spreading the rumour that most eggs in this country were contaminated with salmonella. If those concerned claim that egg sales have gone down, they must, at least in part, accept responsibility for that.
Reference has been made to imported eggs, and that whole issues concerns me. The chief medical officer of health pointed out that in Spain, for example, between one in 1,000 and one in 100 eggs were contaminated. That compares with one in 12,000 in the United Kingdom. It


would, therefore, be dangerous for us to reduce our production and import eggs from a country such as Spain. Indeed, in view of the figures given by the chief medical officer of health, it might be wise for the Government to consider stopping the importation of eggs from Spain at this time.
I have been doing some research recently, talking to food companies which test employees at various times— for example, when they begin work with the company, when they take ill with symptoms of food poisoning and when they return home from holidays abroad. One company which has been carrying out such tests for a decade informed me that three quarters of all cases of salmonella poisoning among employees in its factory concerned employees returning from holidays abroad. I have looked into figures produced by another company which has been carrying out similar tests for six years. In that case, only one quarter of its employees so suffering had returned from holidays abroad.
Clearly, much information is available in Britain, and the Government should be studying it to discover the reasons for the food poisoning epidemic. I apologise for using the word "epidemic"; the report urges us not to use it. We must have tighter standards Europe-wide—most people who go on holiday abroad visit EEC countries—otherwise we shall not get to the bottom of the increase in food poisoning in this country.
Much has been said about the role of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, but I shall not dwell on that today. That Department has been found wanting in many areas, but at least we have a Minister from that Department before us today and ready to stand at the Dispatch Box to answer our questions. It is noticeable, however, that there is not a Minister on the Front Bench from the Department of Health.
The Department of Health seems to think that it was not involved in, or concerned with controlling, the outbreak of salmonella. In fact, that Department was probably more guilty, so to speak, than the Ministry of Agriculture. I appreciate the way in which spokesmen for the latter have not tried to suggest that the criticisms levelled against it have been ridiculous.
On the other hand, the Secretary of State for Health has objected to such criticism. As I pointed out in an intervention, the Select Committee received evidence to the effect that as far back as February 1988 the Hull district local authority's medical officer of health, Dr. Dunlop, realised that there was a major problem with raw eggs and stopped raw eggs and undercooked eggs being given to patients in hospitals in his district.
No action was taken by the Department of Health, nationally, until July 1988, and only then did the Department give guidance to National Health Service hospitals. It did not give any guidance to the general public until almost a month later. That, in itself, represents criminal neglect of the situation—there is no doubt about it. If one health district knew in February 1988 that there was a problem, why did not the Minister know? I suspect that he did know, yet he took no action whatsoever.
I come now to the famous statement that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South made on 3 December. We all know that that was a problem, but, as has been said already, it should have been corrected the following day. The Secretary of State for Health came to the Dispatch

Box—on 6 December, I think—to pacify the country, and the chief medical officer was put on television to calm the situation.
Let us look at the facts. During the week ending 3 December 1988 there was a drop of 15·5 per cent. in egg consumption, compared with the corresponding period in 1987. After the Minister had been to the Dispatch Box the drop increased to nearly 30 per cent. Following his appearance on television the week after that, consumption had gone down by 49 per cent. Such was the assurance from the Minister.
I do not think that it was right for him to appear on television and use the word "ridiculous". I get the feeling that he is becoming a little remote from this place. My wife's favourite film star is Humphrey Bogart. [Laughter.] am talking not about "Casablanca", or even "The African Queen", but about the captain in "The Caine Mutiny". That gentleman seemed to accept responsibility for nothing. He used to play with marbles and put the blame on everybody else. He said that it was ridiculous to blame him, even though he had people counting how many spoons of ice cream were being taken.
That is how the Secretary of State has been behaving—and not only in respect of this matter. Those of us who saw him respond on television to the comments of the British Medical Association on his White Paper on health will remember his saying, "Of course, you have to remember that the doctors opposed the concept of the National Health Service." What he forgot to tell people was that the Conservative party had fought the concept of the National Health Service root and branch. I am greatly concerned—actually, I have to admit that I am not really concerned—about whether the Secretary of State's reputation will ever recover from the crisis arising from salmonella in eggs.
The main purpose of this report was to satisfy the general public that, having looked into the situation, we could tell them whether there was any danger in eating eggs. We came to the conclusion that there was a slight risk for certain groups, but our recommendations will mean that the British public can turn the clock back to the time when they could eat hard-boiled eggs, soft-boiled eggs, raw eggs, fried eggs, scrambled eggs—any kind of eggs they liked—without fear of food poisoning. If the recommendations of the Select Committee are carried out, the general public will be able, once more, to eat eggs with confidence.

Mr. Tim Boswell: I enjoyed working on the Select Committee with the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew). Although I do not agree with the tenor of all his comments, I think it is clear that Members on both sides of the House, together, have been able to produce an effective report.
I should like to make two general points in introduction which I think have not been made earlier. First, the general public have only a vague and ever-changing apprehension of the nature of risks that they face. Very often the major aspect of change in risk is not some objective shift but rather the amount of media coverage that the risk is given. It suits us that matters within our own control—such as whether or not we choose to smoke—do not get quite the prominence of matters in respect of which we can feel that


someone else is to blame. In a sense, that is perfectly reasonable. I do not see why people should have to face uncovenanted and unacceptable risks.
In another context I suggest that perhaps one day we should give some consideration to the establishment of a national health risk assessment machinery rather like the National Radiological Protection Board in a narrower area to tell the general public about the risks that they face. However, in the absence of such machinery, as paragraph 101 of the report indicates, it just is not possible to eliminate all elements of risk and it is just as irresponsible to over-emphasise risks as it is to play them down.
The only time we become immune to risk is when we are dead. In the meanwhile, we have the problem that our grandmothers tended to teach us about. They worried tremendously about germs. There are germs all around us. We do not succeed in eliminating them, but equally they do not succeed in eliminating us. What is important is when circumstances change.
In all these public health matters, the real issue for the Government is the management of risk, keeping it at acceptable levels and, if possible, reducing those levels, and in laying the facts before the public.
The second general point that I want to make concerns the nature of the Select Committee's comments on the Government's response. It is a law of nature that if a Select Committee inquires into the actions of the Government it is more or less bound to be critical. I do not think the reasons are particularly political. I do not think there is some deep interest, although obviously the Opposition have a natural interest in drawing the tenor of a report away from uncritical support of the Government. It is simply that Governments are fallible. Governments always get something wrong, and, by the nature of their general duties, Select Committees sometimes have to criticise their actions. That does not mean that this Select Committee report constitutes what the media have presented as a "savage attack" on the Government. It is a balance of risk that the Government present; it is a balance of criticism that the Select Committee presents.
A Select Committee's greatest luxury is to be able to criticise with hindsight. The hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) not only joined us in the use of hindsight but seems to have second sight as well. In earlier exchanges, he referred to the work of the Research Consultative Committee in 1985. When I asked him about it, he, quite accurately, but irrelevantly, referred to the general increase in the incidents of salmonella enteritidis, and phage type 4 in particular. I have no quarrel with that, but the fact remains that if one looks at the figures for 1985—or rather the figures for 1984, which was the last year whose figures were available to the Research Consultative Committee in 1985—such is the changing nature of the disease that typhimurium was responsible for half the cases that year and the whole complex of enteritidis, not the particular strain only, accounted for only 14 per cent. of the total number of cases.
Furthermore, it could not have been known by the Research Consultative Committee in 1985 that eggs were the problem because, even in 1988, the public health laboratory service said that the evidence remained scanty. I think that the hon. Gentleman was being less than fair to the House, and indeed to me personally, in developing the

point as he did. We all know that this is a changing situation in which everybody has been to some extent perplexed and at odds. I feel that the Committee had to make some allowance for that changing situation and the way the scientists have viewed it. As the report, in paragraph 20 and elsewhere, makes clear, eggs were a new dimension in a new variant, a new special type, of the multiple problem of salmonella. We did not know the risk a priori and we still do not know the full story. Hence the importance which various hon. Members have attached to further research. I welcome that, although the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), who is absent now, perhaps over-emphasised some of the cuts in agricultural research. I speak as a member of the Agricultural and Food Research Council. The hon. Gentleman should study the transcript of the press conference at which some of those matters were discussed recently.
As our knowledge has increased, the Government have had to alter and tailor their advice. That is bound to lead to charges of confusion and inconsistency. As the position changed, the Government response had to change. In conclusion on the general matters, it is reasonable for the Select Committee to criticise the specific timing, but we cannot fail to recognise that the Government, like the consumer, have a problem.
That brings me to the specific points. We need to remember that the debate takes place on the expenditure that the Government incurred on the egg market intervention scheme. We all welcomed the fact that the final cost of the scheme was only 20 per cent. of the forecast. Clearly there was a need to intervene because of the massive drop in market confidence in eggs. Even though that has been partially repaired, long-term market damage has taken place and it has had a knock-on effect on other farmers, particularly cereal farmers. For example, all the efforts that the Ministry put into set-aside to reduce cereal surpluses have been wiped out by the reduction in agricultural markets because of the reduction in the demand for eggs. Faced with a specific and definable problem, much easier than the general scientific problems to which I have referred, the Ministry of Agriculture got its act together. It was very much in the interests not only of the public and consumers for it to do so, but of taxpayers as well, otherwise there would have been more cost to the taxpayer for cereal intervention.
Three other points ought to be emphasised because, perhaps through haste, they did not appear as much as they should in the report. The first, referred to by several hon. Members, relates to imported eggs. I attach considerable importance to imported eggs because salmonella is at least as big a problem in some Mediterranean countries and probably generally in western Europe. It is unlikely that it will be picked up by a few random and token samples at ports, even if samples are taken. From 1992 there will be an effective free market in eggs across national frontiers in western Europe. Therefore, the answer must lie in building on the working party which has been established to lick the problem at European level.
I hope that the Minister will make reports to the House after tonight on further follow-up action that he is taking in the domestic market and on the European initiative because we need to cut off the problem at source so that all eggs are salmonella-free, wherever we get them.
The second point relates to broiler breeder flocks. We naturally wanted to confine the report to eggs, but we had interesting evidence from Hull, which has been referred to in the debate, that there was a specific problem with double yolk eggs that are taken off broiler breeder production and consigned to direct consumption. That may be taken into account in the new provisions for monitoring under the code of practice. Broiler flocks do not normally cause a problem because chickens are cooked thoroughly before eating, thus killing the bug, but I do not think that eggs should be transferred from broiler flocks to direct human consumption.
The final specific point involves catering establishments. It is obvious from the evidence that part of the problem of food poisoning, though not the original source, lies in the kitchen. A single family cook may be just as prone to make mistakes as a caterer. The difference is that in one case damage is confined to a family and in the other hundreds may go down with the disease. I am particularly concerned about sandwich bars, if for no other reason than that I am fond of sandwiches. Sandwich bars should be effectively monitored by local authorities, even if that means that they will need more resources.
On the general lessons of the report, the references in paragraph 32 to effective control at all points in the food chain, from the farm of origin all the way to the kitchen, are important. There are many gateways and pathways through which salmonella may come. It is important to close and restrict as many as we can. Some are in the farmer's hands, some in the trade and some in the kitchen. We must have resources, the right pattern of regulation and incentives to comply with the regulations.
The history of zoonoses and protein processing orders, as presented to us in evidence, suggested that the position was far from ideal in the past. Of course, legislation was generally, though not always, in place, but it was not working effectively. For example, the Protein Processing Order had no power to stop the sending out of food from a source that was known to have been infected. There was no compensation under the Zoonoses Order. That put considerable strain on the professional farmer. If he suspected that he had a problem, was it wise to raise the issue? It also put a considerable ethical strain on his veterinarian as to whether the problem should be reported under the order. Of course, it should have been reported, but whether that was done on the proper scale is perhaps another matter.
Government Departments are always conscious of another problem. While it was uncertain that one could point the finger at an individual farm, as soon as the Ministry cracks down and says, "Though shalt not sell," it is involved in litigation with producers. One needs to draw a contrast with the practice under public health legislation which for some time has enabled the payment of wages to infected persons who are taken out of food factories because they are carriers; they may be paid until the infection is stamped out and they can go back to work.

Mr. Martlew: Is it not a fact that in 1983 the Government changed the regulations and people who are still salmonella positive are going back to work?

Mr. Boswell: I do not think that that has been investigated. It may be appropriate for the Minister to

comment on it in his reply. If it is the case, and if the incentives are inappropriate, we should consider the matter again.
As so often in these matters, the Treasury is the uninvited guest at every Whitehall table. Once again it has held the purse strings and has starved the regulatory machinery of resources. The result in this case, though not always, is that the cost to the taxpayer has been more than would have been necessary if there had been adequate resources from the start. This must not happen again. The Government must find the resources for regulation so as to restore confidence in the industry. The events after 3 December show clearly what happens when the Government move from a smooth top gear into overdrive; a measure of supercharging goes into the system and things go much better.
We are all conscious of the extreme sensitivity of the public to allegations of risk. The counterpart is the extremely vulnerable state of consumer confidence in many foods. It is not always justifiable, but that vulnerability is now established. It is the peculiar and special responsibility of Ministers of the Crown to inform the public clearly about what its happening. Never is that more so than when the responsibility crosses departmental boundaries. Once again hindsight comes cheap. One major lesson to be learnt from all these events is that Ministers at their own level must consult each other and they must speak as a single voice. In this case I fear that careless talk has cost the taxpayer and the egg industry a pretty penny. It has also, sadly and unnecessarily, cost one ministerial life.

Mr. Martyn Jones (Clywd, South-West): It is not surprising that our Select Committee report on salmonella in eggs is welcomed by the Government with the same sort of enthusiasm to be expected from the Ayatollah Khomeini on being presented with a bound volume of "The Satanic Verses" in Farsi. Apart from the obvious embarrassment that any Government would experience from having some major blunders of several Departments exposed to the public gaze, we are, I believe, experiencing, too, the exposure of the fundamental flaw in free-market Toryism. Later Victorian society was not the laissez-faire: heaven that the Government would have us believe, but it was a period when the increasing complexity of society and. the increasing evils of free-market theory were beginning to become so evident that they had to be controlled. Food and water were the first areas in which social planning and collective provision were considered necessary.
The report and the Supplementary Estimate to which the debate refers expose a catalogue of errors, many of which arise from the ridiculous assumption that the state has no role in the production of anything. In a sense, the report should have had a wider brief, because one of our problems in Committee was that of avoiding expanding the remit to take in areas which perhaps were the real cause of burgeoning public health problems—for example, the poultry meat problem that has been around for some time; the uncontrolled growth of new methods of food preparation, such as cook-chill and the perhaps dangerous combination of that with microwave cooking, or, to be more exact, reheating; the reduction in the numbers of public health officers employed by local authorities; and the appalling cuts in research which cannot pay its way in


purely commercial terms. All those areas require close examination, but they were not unfortunately included in our remit.
As the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) said, the report was unanimous in its conclusion. I believe that the report's main areas are valuable assets to the safety of the consumer and to the guidance of the producer. As we are now in the Chamber, I am sure that it is in order for us to stress areas of political dissent, some of which I have already mentioned, such as cuts in research and the role of the Ministers involved.
It was amusing and puzzling to witness the antics of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) after she had made her statement. In fact, she became the very model of ministerial discretion only after resigning from her ministerial post. Could that be because she was told to be quiet by the Secretary of State? If so, why? If that was her own idea, was that for an egotistical or, dare I say, a literary reason?
The Minister said that it was not possible to eradicate salmonella enteritidis, but I am told that Sweden has already done that. I remind him also that there is a part of the British Isles—Northern Ireland—which has managed to stay free of salmonella enteritidis.

Mr. Ryder: Sweden has had a slaughter policy for many years, but it has not eradicated salmonella.

Mr. Jones: I am sure that the Minister's assumption is right, but I am sure that it does not have enteritidis phage type 4. I was trying to make a point that salmonella is a term that was used rather loosely by many people giving evidence to the Committee. As a Committee, we have been looking at enteritidis phage type 4 because that is the one that is rapidly increasing in Britain.
It is possible that we can eradicate enteritidis phage type 4 in Britain. All that would be required to do that would be for some of the balance of the £19 million allocated to repairing the damage to the egg industry—some £16 million to compensate for the destruction and disinfection of the few tens of flocks which have already proven to be infected—to be put into the immediate initiation of research into finding a quick immunological test for specifically salmonella enteritidis phage 4. The technology is there, and it was used for salmonella pullorum eradication. The difference, of course, is that salmonella enteritidis is near market only for consumer health, whereas salmonella pullorum is a chicken pathogen and directly affects the profitability of the producer. Near market research is a nonsense when we are considering public health and food production.
I shall quote from an article on Government cuts in research in the Farmers Weekly of 24 February 1989. It said:
Agricultural research and development is in danger of collapse. About 2,000 scientists, almost one in three, face redundancy, work on environmental pollution and public health will disappear and ADAS is fighting for the survival of its R&amp;D.
The latest Government spending cuts strike at the heart of agricultural science and have triggered a massive reorganisation as beleagured scientists try to salvage a coherent research programme from the wreckage.
The Government plans to increase private funding of R&amp;D by reducing the financial support it provides. But the speed of the attack has left the agricultural industry floundering and unable to react fast enough to save many

endangered projects. At a time when many of our European competitors are stepping up research spending, Britain has embarked on a programme of cuts and closures.
Reductions in Government spending on agricultural R&amp;D are not new. But the cuts looming now are not the penny-pinching of a cost-conscious Government. They represent a profound change in political motives and will have an impact that far outweighs the sums of money involved.
Even after pruning another £30 million from its annual budget over the next three years, the Minister of Agriculture will still be spending £200 million a year on scientific research. But the figures hide a massive shake-up in the way those funds are shared out.
ADAS will lose more than a third of its budget, while the Agricultural and Food Research Council will lose £10 million (nearly 25 per cent.) and divert more of its money away from its own research stations and into the universities.
The effect is to leave more and more ADAS and AFRC scientists fighting for a share of the Government's shrinking purse and the private sector's near-stagnant spending. Confidential documents leaked to Farmers Weekly show the enormous extent of the damage. ADAS R&amp;D could shrink by two-thirds while the AFRC is considering axing as many as 1,150 jobs. The omens are not good.
The political logic behind the cuts is persuasive. The Government argues that if private industry profits from the results of scientific work, then private industry should be prepared to pay for that work.
What industry will pay for research into consumer safety when all that that will do is to decrease that industry's profitability? That is, however, what free-market monetarism means. We are supposed to believe that the Ministry will enforce legislation. But that implies state control—the testing and the sampling of farms and producers. Who will do that? Will it be the veterinary service? The Government are closing two veterinary schools—Cambridge and Glasgow. Will the industry pay? I doubt it.
How can the Government claim to be turning green but at the same time believe in free market capitalism—the dogma of which implies the exploitation of any market to its cost-effective limits? That is an especially obvious nonsense in a complex 20th century situation of public health.
What further delights of free-market choice have we to come? Will there be more listeria and clostridium botulinum cases? Will we see bovine spongiform encephalopathy spread to humans and become an epidemic? Will we see a reduction in standards of water quality—so that the Government can sell off a monopoly with more liabilities than assets—resulting in an epidemic of cryptosporida or enteric viruses?
The free market is a 19th century myth, and to apply it to 20th century food production is bordering on insanity. The report has illustrated that fact graphically.

Mr. Paul Marland: In strict response to the subject of this debate as to whether the cost of this intervention scheme was good value for the taxpayers, I must say that I believe that the money spent was essential and gave good value to the taxpayers and to the consumers. Apart from anything else, it stabilised the egg market. If there had been panic slaughtering of chickens, there would have been a massive drop in production and we should not only have had imported eggs, with all the dangers that that implies, but the price of home-grown eggs would have soared.
I believe that it was the Government's responsibility to find that money because it was as a result of a Minister's blunder that the matter blew up in the way that it did. In


my view, the Government were liable and it was right that they should come forward with the money. I am glad to see that the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) agrees with me. He said that £3 million was expensive, but had there been a panic slaughter of, say, 25 per cent. of the chicken flock, there would have been a massively increased surplus of cereals. I have it on reliable authority that the extra cost of storing those cereals and buying them into intervention would have been £110 million, rather than the £3 million that the hon. Gentleman criticises.

Dr. David Clark: To make the matter quite clear, when the Minister introduced the claim in December—the hon. Gentleman will recall this as I believe that he was present—we supported the Minister, who had no alternative, because we feared the import of eggs and poultry from countries where conditions would not be so good as those in this country.

Mr. Marland: I thank the hon. Gentleman. It is helpful to have that cleared up. I wanted to make the point about the £110 million as against the £3 million. Fair is fair—I will accept the hon. Gentleman's point if he will accept mine.
There is no point in reiterating what has already been said about the report. I confirm that we on the Select Committee considered its contents very carefully. Like others, I am grateful for the remarks that have been made about the effort that we put in on this and I add my words of good will and my compliments to the Chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin), whom I think one can describe as being in most cases fair and firm. I hope that our report has brought some sense of order to the situation and will help to get things into proportion and serve as a useful background document to any further consideration of salmonella in eggs or micro-organisms in food generally. The report attempts to show the way forward.
The report highlights the fact that Ministers have a responsibility to be measured in their actions and in their responses to any situation. I do not believe that since 3 December Ministers have done anything wrong. The hype and hysteria and the genuine desire of people to know what the situation is have focused a great deal of attention on the whole subject, which in itself has demanded instant attention and cried out for instant action. But instant action in this situation is not possible—we have to find out the facts before the Government and Ministers pontificate on the subject. People are confused and they want a guide as to what is safe and what will happen in the future.
The Government's action and speed of reaction to the correct information have been highlighted and complemented in the lead article in this week's Farmers Weekly, which gave the Government eight out of 10 for the way in which they responded to and handled the Southwood report on bovine spongiform encephalopathy. Such a high score from a magazine not usually disposed to write complimentary things about the Government is a great credit to my hon. Friend the Minister. The magazine's only reservation is one that I share—it felt that if farmers found that their animals were suffering from a notifiable disease and informed the Ministry they should have 100 per cent. compensation for slaughter. I agree because it is all too easy to slip an animal into the market if one thinks it is showing any signs of a notifiable disease

before one has to notify it. It would be sensible to give 100 per cent. compensation and I hope that my hon. Friend will consider that.
I emphasise again that the Government need a steady hand when dealing with these emergencies. We have seen the damage that hype and hysteria can do. We have also seen, with other measures that the Government have taken to try to give guidance to the public, that if things are dealt with quietly and steadily they can be effective. The introduction of seat belts and warnings against smoking, alcohol and AIDS, for instance, have been handled gently and steadily and people have gone home, considered what has been said and acted accordingly. I do not think that hysteria is the way to deal with such matters.
For all their self-righteous indignation, members of the Labour party—with the exception of those on the Select Committee—have contributed little of value to the debate. I do not remember their ever acting in the consumer's best interest. Throughout this whole episode they have fed the nation's worst fears with scurrilous remarks which have absolutely no foundation. Saying that the Ministry of Agriculture is in the pocket of the farmers is about as accurate as saying that the Department of Energy is in the pocket of the coalminers. The nation deserves a steady hand, and I believe that that is what we have both at the Ministry of Agriculture and at the Department of Health.
We need full details of research, and perhaps more research. A review of Government research and the publication of that information would be most helpful. With the benefit of hindsight, if the Government publish this information for goodness' sake let us try to do a better job than we did with the publishing of Sir Donald Acheson's advice on what to do about eggs. If ever I saw a diabolical advertisement, that was it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Scaremongering."] That is a matter of opinion.
As the Select Committee report states, we need an information and education campaign for cooks, whether private or commercial, male or female. In a recent Which? report published earlier this week in most of the national newspapers all manner of dangers were revealed. It spoke of dog hairs in the kitchen, cats on the washing up, dirty dishes left in the sink, inaccurate defrosting of food, wrong storage of food that is not defrozen and the inaccurate setting of refrigerator temperatures, all of which can induce salmonella in food.
I know of a friendly vet in Gloucestershire who has done some experiments on listeria to see whether and how it is controlled by cooking. He injected listeria into meat and then took two similar samples. He put one in a conventional oven and cooked it in the normal way. This killed 99 per cent. of the listeria, as he found when he tested the sample afterwards. He cooked the other sample in a microwave oven. When he tested it, he found that only 25 per cent. of the listeria had been killed. This is very important. In their own best interests, the public should be told these things and how to handle a microwave oven. I also know an intelligent grandmother who proved the point by putting her grandchild's milk in the microwave oven to heat it. The top part of the bottle of milk was nice and warm, probably a little over body temperature, and the bottom was still stone cold. Luckily she knew what to do and fed the baby the milk only when it reached a steady temperature. But that proves that microwave ovens need careful handling.
This is not a finger-pointing exercise, but I believe that the people of this country want to know the truth. I


wonder if schools could have more of an input into teaching young people how to go about cooking. Years ago we used to learn domestic science, but sadly that has now been dropped from too many schools and the children learn something else. Boys as well as girls should be taught. We are moving into new systems of food production which necessitate different handling of food in the kitchen. There must be a new regime of food preparation and a new awareness of the dangers of prepared foods. Changed circumstances necessitate new guidance. Many supermarkets are being thoroughly responsible in highlighting the way in which their customers should store and defrost food, but we still need more information—information rather than direction. I should not like to see the banning of green-top milk or soft cheeses, wherever they come from, because we could be banning shellfish next. Conservative Members do not want to live in a nanny state—we want information, not direction. The Opposition like direction and nannies, but that is not how it is with us.
The problem should not be underestimated. People both within and outside the House want information and guidance. Being a practical person, I intend to do what I can to get information to feed to my hon. Friend the Minister and the Department of Health. I am doing that by having a public meeting in my constituency on 22 March. I have invited a local doctor, a representative of a supermarket chain, with whom I came into contact at Gloucester chamber of trade and commerce, a microbiologist from the public health laboratory in Gloucestershire Royal hospital, egg producers from Day Lay in Monmouth and an environmental health officer. I, of course, will be in the chair. I hope that we shall receive some interesting information from the meeting and I shall pass it on to my hon. Friend the Minister. I know that we can all depend on him and his colleagues to do the right thing with it.

Mr. Calum Macdonald: It is with great pleasure that I join with other colleagues who served on the Select Committee in complimenting the Chairman on his deft, sensitive and, happily, at times lighthearted handling of the Committee. I also thank and compliment the clerk who served the Committee, his assistant and the advisers and others who served so expertly and did a tremendous job behind the scenes to produce the report. It was with great satisfaction and some pride that I served on the Committee and participate in tonight's debate.
The Select Committee report is very important, not just in its subject matter, which clarifies the position on salmonella and eggs, but in establishing the powers of Select Committees. The Committee handled a politically sensitive topic in a unanimous way. I also pay tribute to the courage shown by Conservative Members who served on the Committee; they did the Select Committee system a great service.
Rather than go over the ground of the report, I shall comment on the Minister's opening speech this afternoon. His speech was empty, and his various excuses to try to explain away the report's criticisms were unconvincing. The Minister cited the difficulty of achieving Utopia on earth as an excuse for some of the Government's failures

and incompetences. When a Minister starts explaining his failures by saying that there is no such thing as Utopia, it is a sign that he is in trouble.
Another excuse used by the Minister and other hon. Members who have spoken was that it was not fair to criticise the Government using the benefit of hindsight, and that certain matters could not have been anticipated before the Government acted. However, some of the report's most telling criticisms cannot be excused or deflected by talking of the benefit of hindsight. There was no hindsight involved in the Ministry's failure to prevent eggs from farms deemed responsible for food poisoning outbreaks from entering the food chain. It simply failed to take the necessary action. Likewise, it is no use saying that it is only with hindsight that one realises that the Department of Health should have issued advice to the public at the same time as it issued advice to the National Health Service. The vulnerable groups concerned were at large in the public as well as in NHS hospitals.
Paragraph 60 of the report deals with the Ministry of Agriculture and the Government's failure to take the statutory powers necessary to prevent feed found to be contaminated with salmonella from being sold. That does not involve hindsight, either of the Committee or of the Opposition Members who have criticised the Government. As the report states,
the action should have been taken several years ago.
The Government cannot hide behind the excuse of hindsight.
The third excuse that we have heard from the Minister and Conservative Members is to concentrate attention on what the report describes as skilful handling of the intervention package. The Opposition gave credit where credit was due and agreed that the intervention package was handled skilfully. The Minister chose to dwell on that at great length in his speech. However, to use that as an excuse for the earlier failures—

Mr. Ryder: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the motion before the House today deals with the intervention package, which is why I dwelt on it.

Mr. Macdonald: I think that the Minister dwelt on that topic with a great deal of relief and loving attention, thereby hoping to deflect some of the report's criticisms. For the Government or their Back-Bench defenders to try to use that argument to exempt the Government from criticism is like a motorist who has knocked down a pedestrian claiming credit for skilfully administering the kiss of life afterwards.
We must consider—as does the report—the earlier problems and failures that led to the crisis which necessitated the intervention package. At least the Minister is here to defend his Department. It is a cause of great regret that no representative from the Department of Health is present, even to listen. The report covers that Department's failures and shortcomings as well as those of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. It would have been sensible for a Minister from the Health Department to be present to hear some of the comments made by hon. Members on both sides of the House about the failure of the Health Department and the Secretary of State for Health's inadequate response to the report's criticisms of him. He has tried to brush off some of the criticisms as being ridiculous and preposterous.
When I raised the question of the Secretary of State's responsibility in an earlier debate on a similar topic, the


Secretary of State tried to deny any failure on his part or that of his Department. He said that there was nothing wrong in the way that his Department had handled the difficult task of explaining to the public what was meant by the then junior Minister's statement on 3 December 1988. The Secretary of State said that the appropriate person to handle the matter was the chief medical officer and that no blame should be attached to him or to the Department for the way in which the affair was handled.
That still strikes me as somewhat mysterious. If there was nothing wrong with the way in which the Department of Health handled the fallout from the 3 December statement, one wonders why the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South was allowed to resign. If, on the other hand, she was right to resign, surely the Secretary of State must carry some of the blame, because he was her superior.
This is where I differ from the remarks made by the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen). He rightly attacked the cavalier attitude of the Secretary of State to the criticisms made of him in the report, but he was wrong to insert a wedge between the responsibility borne by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South and by the Secretary of State, because the responsibility for the crisis and failure of communication was shared by both. The right hon. Member for Shropshire, North said that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South should carry a political health warning, but, although her original statement was undoubtedly wrong, as was her refusal to correct it, the Secretary of State was equally wrong in his handling of her statement. Hereafter he, too, should carry a political health warning.
One of the things that strikes me about the comments that the Select Committee saw fit to make about the Government's handling of the salmonella problem was how much they parallel criticisms that we made in an earlier report on Chernobyl. Then, as now, we found a slowness to act and delays in taking vital decisions. Then, as now, we found confusion and lack of co-ordination between Ministries. On both occasions we found a failure to inform the public in time or adequately. Perhaps if the Government had taken our earlier criticisms to heart they would have avoided falling into the same mistakes on this occasion—but they did not, and they still do not.
The Minister mentioned the salmonella control programme being undertaken in Sweden. I asked the Minister a parliamentary question about that this week. I understand that the Ministry sent some officers to Sweden to examine its salmonella eradication and control programme. I understood that a report had been prepared on the programme and on its success or otherwise, and I asked the Ministry to deposit that report in the Library so that hon. Members could have the benefit of some of the information on which Ministers rely when making statements. Unfortunately, the Ministry responded that it would be inappropriate to place the report in the Library for the benefit of hon. Members. After all the problems and travails that the Ministry has undergone because of its failure to be open, such secrecy is deplorable.
As I have said, many criticisms parallel to those that have been made of the Government on this occasion are to be found in earlier reports such as the one on Chernobyl. There is, however, one vital difference. One of the causes for the Government's mishandling of the affair has been what some have termed their cosy relationship with the producers. This is not a broad-brush criticism; I do not say that the Government enjoy a cosy relationship with all

producers. I sometimes regret that they are not more sympathetic to some producers. But if we contrast the Government's intervention package after the salmonella egg scare with their handling of the rescue package after Chernobyl, the cosy relationship with the egg producers can clearly be seen.
Tonight, the Minister said that the Government were determined that there should be no half measures about the intervention package for eggs, but when it was a question of compensating the hill farmers who were affected by the Chernobyl fallout the Government took the line that the farmers would have to accept some rough justice. The contrast is obvious—

Dr. David Clark: Before my hon. Friend leaves Chernobyl, and in order to emphasise his point about obsessive secrecy, may I ask him whether he is aware that the Ministry of Agriculture is holding a public meeting tonight in Cumbria to explain to the farmers in the restricted areas the results of the aerial survey? The only trouble is that the Ministry has not supplied copies—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. By decision of the House, the debate must be confined to salmonella in eggs. Has the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) concluded his speech?

Mr. Macdonald: I have not. I agree with my hon. Friend, who has cited another example of the Government's deplorable lack of openness.
A group of producers in Scotland who do not enjoy such a cosy relationship with the Government are the fishermen, who have been affected by the quota cuts in haddock and cod. Another group are the hill farmers, who will lose out under the sheepmeat regime. When these cases have been brought to the Ministry's attention, it replies that it will have to assess the effect on their incomes retrospectively—no question of rushing in with an intervention package of £19 million to help fishermen or hill farmers in Scotland.
The lesson to be learnt from this episode is that ordinary people who do not possess the economic clout of the large producers—fishermen, small hill farmers and ordinary consumers—cannot look to the Government for protection. They can look only to the Opposition for protection and support.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Earlier in the: debate, my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) alluded, in a witty and informative speech, to the proceedings before the Select Committee that produced this report. In one respect he was in error. He said—I think that I quote the substance of his comment accurately—that if a Member of this House appeared before a Select Committee and did not answer its questions, there was nothing that the Select Committee could do about it.

Mr. Wiggin: I said that.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I am sorry, it appears to have been the Chairman of the Select Committee. However, I think that hon. Members will find that it was also said by my right hon. Friend. The comment was not correct.
This House sets up Select Committees by an Order of the House and empowers them with their terms of reference. If a Select Committee's inquiries fall within


those terms of reference and if it finds it cannot continue its inquiries to the point of the production of the report, either because a Member of this House refuses to attend or because a Member of this House does attend, but refuses to answer the questions that the Committee puts to him which are within its terms of reference, it makes a special report to the House stating those facts. The Leader of the House is then, by convention, bound to move a motion from the Dispatch Box ordering the hon. Member concerned to attend the sitting of the Select Committee at a time notified by its Chairman and there to answer to the satisfaction of the Committee—not to the satisfaction of the House—the questions that the Committee addresses to that hon. Member. The position is not obscure; it is clear.
Select Committees are chosen by the Select Committee of Selection, not by the normal channels. The House, which sets up the Committees to do a job for it, grants them the power to do that job. It is perfectly true that the Chairman cannot issue a witness summons to a Member of either House, as he can to anyone else. The remedy that applies to a Member of this House, which does not, of course, apply to a Member of another place, lies in a special report. It is then the duty of the Leader of the House, who moves the motion in the first place setting up the Committee, to move the motion in the name of the House directing the hon. Member to attend and to answer the questions put to him or her. It is as well that that should be put on the record.
I read the report carefully, as soon as it come out. My judgment is that the Committee had discharged admirably its duty to the House. It would have been easy for it to produce a report lacking in precision or lacking in scope. It avoided both of those pitfalls and the whole House has reason to be grateful to the Committee and its Chairman for their industry and also for their lucidity, both of which can be seen in the report.
May I also commend the Committee's use of heavy type, which makes it easier to identify the recommendations from the general text. I want to focus on section (vii) of the part of the report which is headed "Countermeasures". It is of crucial importance, and I was disappointed that my hon. Friend the Minister, in responding to the Committee's report on behalf of the Government, ignored it. It is an important section and is headed "Imported Eggs". It says:
S. enteritidis is not confined to Great Britain, but the Government's present powers do not allow it to prevent the importation of infected eggs as readily as it can ban imported protein.
May I mention in passing that the treaty of Rome allows importation bans if they are bona fide for the protection of health? If we are not talking about the protection of health, we are not talking about anything at all. It is clear to me that bans on infected food fall within the bona fide protection of health provision. I imagine that that would be so even after 1 January 1993, which is so often referred to as 1992, as I must say for the avoidance of doubt. Importation bans are a necessary protective measure.
I now come on to a part of the report in heavy type.
We recommend
said our Committee, because it is a Committee that reports to the whole House,
that MAFF study how far imported eggs are contributing to the present problem; and whether any tighter restrictions are needed.

The report then goes back into normal type and the Committee tells us:
Since the UK is not alone in the European Community in having a problem with poultry-borne salmonellas"—
and here the report continues in heavy type—
MAFF should press for Community initiatives to prevent the trade of infected products; and should hold similar discussions with other trading partners.
There are good precedents for such a step. For a long time, we have been concerned that two EEC countries in particular—Holland and West Germany—have been sending pork meat products to this country that are so lightly cooked that they have caused outbreaks of disease in our pigs, when discarded sandwiches and food, inadequately recooked, have found their way into the diet of pigs. There is nothing new in saying that we need to intervene in the EEC to raise the standards in other countries. However, the last observation in bold type that I quoted does not remove the necessity for the first.
Unless and until the other EEC countries adopt measures and enforce them—the one does not necessarily, alas, entail the other—which will result in salmonella-infected eggs not being exported to the United Kingdom, we are perfectly entitled at the moment, as I read the treaty of Rome, to ban them at the port of entry. However, in practical terms, that could be done only if the eggs were inspected, because nobody will know whether they are infected unless they are inspected. It is here that we come up against the difficulty that unless and until we have a national inspection scheme, funded nationally on the Estimates that we are discussing today, we shall not have effective control over imported eggs. As this excellent report says, the only way in which one can tell whether an egg is infected is by penetrating its shell and testing what is inside. That is not in dispute. There must be, therefore, extensive sampling of imported eggs.
Such sampling would be far too much of a financial burden to impose on inspectors paid from the rates, which are rigidly controlled by the Government. That is why it must be a task adopted by central Government and charged to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food or to the Department of Health. I said that in last Monday's agriculture debate, but it is wholly relevant to the debate today. Effective import controls to prevent the ingress of disease will not be achieved at bargain-basement costs. All the money that the Department is spending on controlling this disease will not achieve the confidence in this product of the consumer unless the market is protected from the infection of salmonella-bearing imported eggs. I do not believe that many consumers notice whether they are buying imported eggs. If they get salmonella poisoning from eggs, as far as they are concerned they are getting it from eggs, and eggs are eggs. It is no good asking them, "Are you sure that it was not an imported egg?" They will attribute it to a failure of the measures taken by the Government and the industry.
Let me say how glad I am that my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare and his Committee also focused on the importance of hygiene in the catering industry and in the home. People do not smell their own breath. If they get salmonella poisoning from an egg, the last thing that they will believe is that it is because they cracked the egg on a dirty draining board in case it leaked out, and that from that draining board—which had previously had raw meat on it and had not subsequently been cleaned with disinfectant or boiling water—the egg


picked up salmonella. They will be convinced that the salmonella must have been in the egg when they bought it. They may have beaten it with an egg whisk which had been lying on the draining board before being used. Why? Because the draining board is a convenient place to wash up.

Mr. Marland: It is where the cat sits.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Very possibly it is.
These are important considerations. I do not suppose that I am the only Member to receive letters from constituents who applaud free-range eggs but decry the Government for not preventing salmonella poisoning. What has become clear from the report, if it was not clear before, is the significantly increased risk of salmonella in free-range eggs, which are exposed to the droppings of wild birds which may themselves be infected.
Apart from that, as the report points out, if the eggshell is dirty with the faeces of the hen that laid it—which is less likely in the case of battery hens, because their conditions are designed in such a way that it does not happen—there is a greater likelihood that the eggs will be contaminated at the moment of breaking.
The report makes useful reading not only for Members of the House of Commons but for women's institutes and mothers' unions, so that the message about home hygiene—whether it relates to eggs or to many other forms of food—is at last really appreciated. It may not be glamorous, but it is necessary if the public expenditure that we are discussing today is to achieve its final objective.
Finally, let me draw attention to the cost of inspecting flocks. If blood tests are to be taken, that could well be very expensive. I imagine that a separate needle will be required for every bird, for the same reason that separate disposable needles are now used when different people are given blood tests or injections by their local general practitioners. If the test on one bird is not to give a false result resulting from the test on another, the procedure is likely to be very costly.
If the cost is borne by our producers, whose eggs will be priced out of the market, the United Kingdom produced eggs or the imported eggs which do not have to bear the cost? As the imported eggs carry a much greater risk of infection, is it in the interests of the consuming public for the cost of the tests to be borne from central Government funds, or should it be borne by the producer, with the result that people must eat untested imported eggs?
I think that the question answers itself, as important questions so often do if we put them clearly and logically. The message that must reach the Treasury from the debate is that a significant amount of increased public expenditure will be necessary if we are to protect the integrity of the food chain—from the food delivered to the producer to the birds producing the eggs, and subsequently to the shops where the eggs are sold and the homes or catering establishments where they are consumed.
Catering establishments are not just cafeterias. As I queued for 10 minutes yesterday to pay for my petrol at a motorway service station, I watched fascinated as for the whole of those 10 minutes the door of the refrigerator containing sandwiches was left open while a girl put in packets of sandwiches, removed the prices and re-priced—I hope that that was what she was doing—the sandwiches already inside. The door of the refrigerator, a cabinet, was open for all the time that I was there, and the

House will be interested to learn that there were egg sandwiches within. The final part of the food chain may be in a café or restaurant; it may be in a home; but it may also be in the self-service cabinets that are now to be found all over the place.
If we want value for money from the additional public expenditure involved in preventing the consuming public from becoming infected with salmonella, those are some of the aspects that we shall have to watch.

Mr. Roy Beggs: I am happy to have the opportunity to congratulate the Select Committee and its Chairman on the speed with which they acted to limit the damage done to egg producers in the United Kingdom, and particularly in Northern Ireland, as a result of the crisis caused by the ill-chosen remarks of the former Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health. That reported, headline-grabbing comment created unjustified fears among consumers and dramatic falls in egg consumption, to the loss of those throughout the United Kingdom whose livelihood was directly associated with egg production.
We should not forget that egg producers are also egg consumers. They have young children and elderly relatives who could be vulnerable, and they are unlikely to engage in any egg production practice that could threaten their livelihoods, their own health, that of their loved ones or that of consumers. I welcome the report and its recommendations. I feel reassured, as will my constituents, by the fact that no evidence was found to support the assertion that most egg production was infected with salmonella, whether that was taken to mean most eggs or most flocks.
Hon. Members have referred a good deal to food hygiene. If consumers cook eggs thoroughly for vulnerable groups—recognising that there is a small risk with uncooked eggs—and follow the chief medical officer's advice, I am confident that any risk of illness can be avoided. Experts agree, however, that salmonellas are impossible to eradicate, so it is important that every housewife—indeed, every individual who cooks in a kitchen or prepares food for sale—recognises the dangers that can be caused by the careless storage or handling of food.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: Does the hon. Gentleman not feel that there is a part to be played by education and that young people at school should be taught in home economics about the necessity for hygiene in the home? Sadly, that subject is not included in the national curriculum.

Mr. Beggs: I thank the hon. Member for that very constructive intervention. Having been a teacher for many years, and having encouraged every boy in the first three years of his attendance at secondary school to gain experience in cooking and domestic hygiene, I feel that as adults those who have not had that experience will be greatly disadvantaged and perhaps—I hope not—there could be some risk to health due to the absence of first-hand knowledge of domestic hygiene. It is to be hoped that the Government will encourage an education programme not just for young people but to promote greater public awareness generally. I know, for example, that many people deliberately order cracked eggs for


baking and cooking. That is fine if they receive them fresh and use them immediately, but carelessly stored eggs provide an excellent medium for the growth of bacteria and people who allow shells to get damp, and so on, are creating a risk for those who may use food cooked with such eggs.
Reference has been made to the large number of eggs imported into Great Britain and the risk from foreign eggs. I shall not mention the sources that have already been mentioned, but I take the opportunity to remind the House that no case of salmonella enteritidis has been found in Northern Ireland. Nevertheless, because the majority of eggs produced in Northern Ireland are exported, particularly to the rest of the United Kingdom, the salmonella scare had a very serious effect on Northern Ireland egg producers.
First, there was the effect on egg consumption in Northern Ireland, which fell dramatically. Despite the fact that no cases of salmonella were found in Northern Ireland, the publicity—much of which was well-intentioned—carried on after the damage was done, continuing to make the situation worse, and this had a significant detrimental effect on local consumption. Secondly, the scare in the rest of the United Kingdom resulted in a very substantial fall in demand. Indeed, the fall was so great that production in Great Britain was able to meet demand and there was no need to import eggs from Northern Ireland, so producers there were left with eggs that they could not sell. Local producers in Northern Ireland thus lost heavily as a result of the scare and, despite the Government's advertising programme and reassurance that the salmonella danger was greatly exaggerated, demand is still well below normal.
The intervention package introduced to help producers by taking eggs off the market and culling egg-laying birds did not have a great take-up—first, due to the short period of operation and, secondly, due to the fact that producers were not likely to kill young birds. Had the scheme been for older birds, the take-up would have been much greater.
Although there have been no cases of salmonella enteritidis in Northern Ireland, I am pleased to assure the House that there is no complacency and that the industry there has a working party involving the union and the Department of Agriculture, working together on codes of practice to tighten up the already high health standards in Northern Ireland. I hope that hon. Members will acknowledge that the large quantities of eggs exported from Northern Ireland to Great Britain are not "foreign" eggs but very pure eggs and that Northern Ireland has the highest possible health standards and health record as regards our farm livestock and the food products that we export. Indeed, an opportunist might say that Northern Ireland egg producers should be aggressively marketing their eggs at a premium here on the mainland because I believe that people would be willing to pay a premium for the purity of the eggs supplied.
Since the scare, I have not altered my own habits—confident in the knowledge that the eggs produced locally in Northern Ireland are absolutely free of salmonella infection. I continue to eat hard-boiled, scrambled or lightly fried eggs. For those who have not tried it, an excellent tonic is raw eggs—provided that they come from

a good source—with a little brandy to give people a lift if they are feeling low. I shall probably need exactly that after I have finished here this evening.
'Tis an ill wind that blows nobody any good, and I am satisfied that after all the public discussion since the salmonella crisis erupted poultry meals will no longer be included in layers' rations. Myth or no myth, in my opinion such recycling within the food chain is offensive. I do not want ever to eat any such product, no matter how well sterilised the previous product was before it was fed to any farm livestock, and I hope no former animal protein will be included in livestock feed.
Northern Ireland producers have still not recovered from the damage done and I am disappointed that the Government did not take the opportunity to emphasise and re-emphasise widely that eggs produced in Northern Ireland were salmonella-free. Nevertheless, I commend all those responsible for the report and trust that the Government will act quickly to implement all the recommendations put forward so that full consumer confidence can be restored.

Mr. David Curry: I join my colleagues in congratulating the Chairman of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin), on the way in which he handled our meetings.
This report raises three essential issues to do with the way in which the Government handle crises. I would like to focus upon the inter-relationship between when the problem is dealt with at an administrative level and when it emerges at the political level. We have to look first at the handling of the pre-crisis within the Ministry of Agriculture—the crisis I am talking about is the great debate of December—and the co-ordination of the response across two Ministries because two Ministries were centrally involved in this. Finally, we need to examine the crisis management during that short period in December and what followed it.
The key to the first issue, the pre-crisis situation in MAFF, is at what point the doubts being expressed about health and the safety of the product should be translated from the administrative to the political arena. Ministers do not walk into their office on Monday morning and say, "Well chaps, how many prosecutions have there been under the Zoonoses Order since last Friday?" They have to deal with such a crowding of events that they must depend upon being alerted when events which have been rolling on in the Ministry begin to emerge as a problem which warrants political attention.
The first question that the report asks is whether those warnings were effectively coming through to Ministers. Were the people in the Ministry who had been dealing with those matters for months, if not longer, alert to the political liabilities that were building up for Ministers? Under the British system we have ministerial responsibility. It is entirely right that a Minister should at the end collect whatever flak is appropriate. However, it is also important that there should be an effective upward flow of information. If the job of civil servants is to protect their Ministers, their job must also be to warn their Ministers of any problem.
I deduce from my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare and from the evidence given to the


Select Committee that the first time that the discussions reached a ministerial level was as late as November. For example, there had been no ministerial meetings with the industry before November. Before November there had been no plans to make codes statutory rather than voluntary. It must have been obvious before that that this was a sensitive issue and we are correct to criticise the slow pace at which matters evolved within the Ministry.
It is right to ask why that might have been. One reason must be because, in a sense, the Ministry of Agriculture is a Ministry apart. It spends a great deal of its time dealing with Brussels and the problems of the common agricultural policy. It has not been at the forefront of the great reforming drive of the past few years which has hit the headlines. It may not have become accustomed to dealing with politicised issues as may have become the case in other Departments.
It is equally true to say that there has probably been a weary déjà vu about problems of surplus and mountains affecting the Department. There must have been a weary repetition of the sort of problems that were constantly brought to the Minister's attention. Therefore, when there were warnings, whether they came from the Department of Health or internally within the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, they were not acted upon urgently enough, or they were not understood or they were not pressed hard upon Ministers.
It is also true to say that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is still fairly producer-oriented. I do not accuse Ministers. My right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) was present earlier. Over the past few years the way in which the Ministry goes about many of its problems has changed fundamentally. However, the Ministry's origins mean that basic concern with producer interests is still deeply rooted within the Department.
In addition, the Government have set their stamp upon the notion that they are a deregulatory rather than a dirigiste Government. Therefore, I do not blame civil servants if they are reluctant about recommending to Ministers measures which might have a dirigiste stamp about them when they know that the inclination of their political masters is to move in the opposite direction.
That brings me to another difficulty that the report highlighted. Even if it had been agreed that action should be taken and measures enforced, the legal basis for that was inadequate. There were no prosecutions under the Zoonoses Order. One or two show trials would have been useful if only pour encourager les autres. That was not possible, and I am sure that that was because the advice would have been that there would be a danger of a judicial review and a defeat because of the legislation in train.
When the problem emerged in the political theatre, the action was prompt. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister because it was he who took the issue by the scruff of its neck, after which we saw rapid and effective action. My reproach is not directed towards the political level but towards the inter-relationship between the administrative and political levels.
The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was not the only Department involved. The Department of Health was involved. What do we know about inter-departmental communications? At what level were contacts made? Again I deduce from the evidence given that there were no ministerial contacts between the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the

Ministry of Health at any early stage, but there must have been contacts between the Departments at other levels. At what level did they take place? They must have been at a senior level. There must have been such contacts. The Department of Health's anxiety must have been expressed within the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. So we come to the problem of the transmission of that concern at the point at which Ministers say, "Hello, we have a problem. We had better look at this. There is something here that does not feel quite right." I realise that in a sense that is a matter of political intuition, but it is a legitimate subject for concern.
Then we come to the crisis management of the famous events of December when my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) made her comments about the safety of eggs in a pre-arranged television interview. I am a professional journalist; a television reporter. I paid my subs to the National Union of Journalists only a few days ago. What would I do if such remarks were made to me? This is a matter for conjecture. but I would get hold of a Minister from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to corroborate the statement. I do not know whether those involved were successful in getting hold of the Minister, but I know jolly well that they would have chased him. That is what I would have done. That would have been my immediate reaction.
What does the Minister do? If he has any sense, he says, "Hold your horses. Let me find out what she said". He then gets on to his Department who gets on to the Department of Health. The telephone wires go berserk. I am sure that the whole matter was conducted in a civilised way. It is merely my hypothesis that this was most likely to have happened. Representations would then have been made to discover what was said and to find out what was to be done.
The Department of Health then has a problem. It has a choice to make. One possibility is that it can go straight in front of the television cameras and say, "This is not true. This is wrong. We deny it. We argue with the statement." My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was on his way to Montreal at that point, so we are talking about an argument between junior Ministers. A public dispute between junior Ministers is not an edifying spectacle. Therefore, it is entirely correct that at that point the focus should have been upon seeking clarification of the remarks to try to nip things in the bud by retraction or some sort of explanation of the remarks.
Was such a clarification sought? I surmise that it must have been. Was it refused? I suspect that it must have been denied at that point. That failure to clarify meant that. the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the producers were then put in the position of refuting an allegation. There was no requirement to substantiate the allegation. That is contrary to everything that I have learnt, even as an amateur of the principles of English law where one is innocent until proven guilty.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health came to the House and told us what the situation was. The Government's chief medical officer was sent in to bat. In the absence of a clarification from the author of those remarks, we had a drama involving Hamlet without the princess. That was the key to the problem. When, later on, my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South said that she stood by her remarks we


were going downhill all the way. The crisis management was extremely difficult in any case, but it got beyond control at a fairly early stage.
When we got over that hump and reached the position when it was necesary to put measures in place, we saw crisis management at its best. The Government acted responsibly and quickly and, as it proved, economically. That floor was put under the industry, albeit at a late stage, because of events, and it prevented what was a defeat from turning into a rout. From the figures that we have had today, we know that consumption is now significantly down. But that package was opportune and well constructed and it turned out to be economical as well. In congratulating the Ministry on doing that, our report is quite justified, just as it is justified in its criticisms where they have been made. I am sure that everyone will recognise the essential equilibrium of the balance at the heart of the report.
My conclusion is that, while we need not shift furniture around, we must make sure that the Department has an effective mechanism for the vertical transmission of information within it and also that, where Departments have to co-ordinate, they do so in an effective manner. The least good remedy would be to create yet another institution which would require co-ordination with yet more bodies.
The lessons from this experience are to make sure that those Ministries and other existing bodies operate effectively and that we do not attempt to solve a problem simply by an institutional rearrangement because, in the end, it is efficiency of the people that matters, not the geography of the institutions. It would be an entirely wrong appreciation of the problem if we went in that direction instead of recognising that it is the quality of the people that is essential to this debate.
The report is both apposite and balanced. I am pleased that we have been able to sign it, despite one or two reticences at an earlier stage in the procedure, and I am happy to join in the congratulations to the Committee's Chairman who has made such a good job of representing us here in this Chamber, as he has done throughout the debate.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones (Ynys Môn): I congratulate the Chairman and members of the Select Committee in performing such an admirable public duty, the speed with which it conducted its affairs and presented its report and for its service not only to the House but to the public generally, both producers and consumers. I would also like to compliment the House on the responsible way in which, for the most part, this debate has been conducted, in that we have tried to draw the lessons from the whole salmonella affair.
I detected at an early stage that panic was setting in, following the remarks of the then junior Health Minister, because I went to a restaurant in the capital city of Wales, Cardiff, shortly afterwards and from the menu I saw that, for the first time ever, I could order a mixed grill with or without eggs. That showed me that the retail side of the trade in restaurants was panicking. What was remarkable was that the people who were actually buying the eggs were not panicking as much as people who were buying

them in the restaurants. Although the retailers were not prepared to buy eggs from producers, very often the consumer was perfectly happy to buy them.
One could see immediately the remark was made that producers would suffer. I declare an interest in that my son keeps a few hens. As he had decided that there might be a few pennies in it for him, we decided to carry out an academic exercise. We bought a little book and worked out a profit and loss account. My son suddenly realised that there was not a lot of money in eggs, that the margins were extremely low and that he would have to have a very large flock of hens before he could get a return and pay himself a decent wage. So he and I both knew, as soon as that remark was made and because we were aware of the very small margins for most egg producers, that they would be in deep financial trouble very quickly.
What was required at an early date was that confidence in eggs should be restored. The problem was that the Department of Health consistently refused to contradict the statement of the junior Health Minister. All that happened when the Secretary of State for Health came to the House was that he repeated over and over the view of the chief medical officer. Unfortunately, the public was still left with the view of the junior Health Minister and, unless there was a retraction of her statement, the public would still believe that there was a problem. Until there was an adequate retraction of that statement, we would continue to have problems.
When the Secretary of State for Health came to the House to respond to a private notice question a few days after the event, he adopted a rather cavalier approach to the whole affair, and I am afraid that the House itself in many ways adopted a cavalier approach. The House should remember that what we say here amongst ourselves is reported out there and that the people out there are concerned about things that go on.
When the Secretary of State appeared before the Committee to give evidence and was asked about the junior Health Minister's statement, he said:
The statement on the Saturday interview, the material statement if you like, I do not actually have an opinion on because as I said, personally reading it I think it is ambiguous.
The public did not think that it was ambiguous; the public thought that it was a real problem. The Secretary of State was armed with briefings and with all the up-to-date information. He may, therefore, have considered that the statement was ambiguous, but the public did not think that it was. The Minister failed at that stage to contradict the statement; it might have breached collective responsibility. Yet his duty to the producer and the consumer should have meant that at that stage he put the record straight. So collective responsibility within the Government took precedence over the duty of the Government to present information to the public.
I want to compliment the Minister of Agriculture on the way in which he eventually handled the crisis. There is no doubt that market confidence had been lost and that, in view of their small profit margins, egg producers faced financial ruin. The Minister acted properly because he put a floor into the market. He acted responsibly and in the way one would expect a Minister to act, bearing in mind that he was trying to respond to a crisis which was not of his making. The industry itself was pleased with the way in which he eventually reacted.
What lessons do we learn from the crisis? In the way that the political side of it was dealt with, it should have been realised that the unfortunate remark, which was only later and partially retracted in a letter to the Select Committee, should have been retracted earlier, and the Minister should have been able to handle the affair at the Dispatch Box. We could then have ensured that the crisis would not deepen, as eventually it did. The Government should have accepted that responsibility.
The crux of the matter is underlined in paragraph 111 of the report, which says:
We believe the public is entitled to expect the Government to take, and be seen to take, all reasonable measures to ensure the safety of food.
That clearly is the case and we need to underline it. But do we need a new Department to deal with this? My own view—I speak for no one else on these or other Benches in this regard—is that we probably do not. It is not the structures that are important, but the way that people in the existing Departments respond.
I take the point made in the report that there needs to be grater liaison and co-ordination between Departments. I feel pretty sure that the lesson of the debacle will have been learnt in both Departments and that from now on there will be more liaison and more discussion to ensure that it will not be repeated in future. I commend the report to the House because I believe that it is a responsible report and we should all learn from it.

Mr. Ron Davies: I begin by replying immediately to the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones), who concluded that he did not consider that there was a need for any structural change in the organisation of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. That gives me the opportunity to reply to the specific question raised by the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells), who asked what Labour policy was. The Minister will be desperately anxious to hear my answer because tomorrow morning he will have to reassure his advisers that, in the event of a forthcoming Labour victory, they will still be employed by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I am happy to reassure him that we propose to retain the integrity of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. However, we propose to establish a food protection agency, an independent body answerable to the Cabinet Office. In direct reply to the question that the Minister asked my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), of course the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will be responsible for replying to parliamentary questions in exactly the same way as the Secretary of State for the Environment replies to questions on the Countryside Commission.
I turn to more general matters by saying how much I have enjoyed the debate. I have been present throughout the debate and heard all the speeches. There is no doubt that it has been a full debate and, by and large, it has been a well-informed debate in which nine members of the Select Committee and hon. Members representing all parts of the United Kingdom have spoken. It has been noticeable that there has been agreement across the Floor of the House on several points, which I shall identify, because the Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin), may draw some comfort from them and may wish to discuss them

with Chairmen of other Select Committees. I hope that the Minister will note them because there are some matters which he should consider within his Department. I offer them not as partisan criticism but as an honest attempt to assist the Chairman of the Select Committee and the Minister.
The first matter of agreement is the way in which all hon. Members have congratulated the Chairman of the Select Committee on the presentation of his report and hon. Members on the Select Committee have commended him on his chairmanship and on the way in which he conducted proceedings. The report is a splendid example of good English. It was easy to read and to understand and that has assisted our deliberations.
Secondly, we all recognise that there is a potential hazard in egg consumption. We recognise that the hazard is minimal, but if public confidence is to be maintained the highest standards must be seen to apply and in that respect the Government carry a major responsibility.
Thirdly, and following from that, if we accept that the Government have taken steps to ensure that the highest standards apply in Britain, many hon. Members have expressed a very real fear that imported eggs which will substitute for the disturbed market in Britain may well have been produced in less favourable conditions than those which apply to British egg producers. Obviously, that puts British producers and consumers at a disadvantage. The Minister has been asked several times what he intends to do about that. The hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) gave the Minister a direct challenge. I do not expect the Minister to respond this evening, but I urge him to listen carefully to the real concerns that have been voiced. If he is to ensure that the protection that he is extending to domestically-produced eggs is successful, parallel measures must apply to imports. That point has united the House this evening.
Fourthly, Conservative and Opposition Members recognise that the cuts in research during the past 12 months were ill-advised and the Government have to reconsider the extent to which they are withdrawing funding, or the way in which they attempt to define market-led research and identify what research is in the common good.
Fifthly, at the beginning of the debate the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) spoke about the service which had been done to the Select Committee: system generally. I add my personal congratulations to the: Chairman of the Select Committee on the way in which he. conducted the affair of the missing hon. Member, the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie). No doubt we shall talk about her later. Clearly, a precedent has been established that hon. Members can be required to attend Select Committees. I am only sorry that the Committee did not come to the House and request the House to resolve that the hon. Lady be required to attend and answer to the satisfaction of the Committee. Having read very carefully her responses to the Committee and the questions that were asked but not answered, I felt that she was deliberately refusing to co-operate with the spirit of the questions. She has done the Select Committee system a disservice. To some extent, at least, that has been balanced by the way in which the Committee—with the sole exception of the hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry)—unanimously agreed to support the Chairman's request. That bodes well for the Select Committee system.
Finally, the Minister must accept criticism in the report directed against the Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food and the Department of Health. It is quite clear that when the Select Committee was reaching its conclusions partisan considerations could not have been uppermost in its mind because it had a Conservative majority. I am confident that it was not concerned with scoring political points but rather was concerned to learn the lessons of the events of the past 12 months, to ensure that the Government were aware of how the House of Commons perceived them and that the Government were sufficiently aware to prevent them from happening again.
As for the substance of the report, there is evidence that throughout the 1980s the Government were aware of the existence of a problem of salmonella enteritidis associated with eggs. They were certainly aware of hazards to human health posed by salmonella and therefore alarm bells should have been ringing during 1988 as the number of reported cases rose inexorably and dramatically. The hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) raised that matter with my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields, who pointed out the evidence on page 1 of the report showing the marked increase in salmonella infection.
It was the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South who unleashed the storm with her now infamous statement that
most of the egg production of this country, sadly, is now infected with salmonella".
It is my personal regret that she is not present this evening. By her absence, she has shown further her lack of concern for the proceedings of the House and for the damage which she caused the British egg industry and to her Government. I wish to put on record that I wrote to the hon. Lady this afternoon, letting her know that I intended making some remarks about her conduct.[Interruption.] As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has so perceptively noticed, she is not present. I understand that my hon. Friend has been engaged on other Commons business and has not been fully aware of our proceedings. If he wishes to intervene, I shall be happy to give way to him shortly, but first I wish to place on the record one particular point. I refer to the conduct of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South.
With the benefit of hindsight, it is possible to place different interpretations on the statements made by the former junior Health Minister last December. However charitably we may do so, there is no mistaking the impact that her statement was bound to have on British consumers, which was the point made by the hon. Member for Ynys Môn. Here was a Government Health Minister who deliberately and consciously cultivated the art of publicity, and who decided, deliberately and consciously, to draw the attention of the British public, via the media, to what the Government perceived to be health problems. Whether they were associated with smoking, diet, AIDS or hypothermia, the hon. Lady deliberately drew those matters to public attention by the use of colourful, extravagant language.
The hon. Lady, speaking as a Government Health Minister, said that
most … production of this country, sadly, is now infected".
She did not say "some" production or "part" of the production, but "most" production. In her words, the majority of production was infected with salmonella. Last year saw a massive rise in salmonella poisoning, and the

public knew that it could kill. The public knew that there had been a dramatic rise in the incidence of salmonella poisoning throughout 1988 and it was small wonder that in December 1988, in the light of the junior Minister's statement, the public reacted as they did, and small wonder that the market for British eggs went through the floor.
In the early weeks of last December, the British egg industry suffered a 50 per cent. drop in consumption and, at times, an 80 per cent. drop in sales. Catastrophe loomed, redundancies were announced, and a whole industry was threatened. The Government had to act, and act they did—in a way that has brought commendations from the Select Committee. While we may have had our differences with the Government when their rescue package was announced and while, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields made clear, there were points of detail that we challenged, we unequivocally supported the Government's rescue package. The package won the commendation of the Select Committee and all right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken this evening have also commended the Government on the way in which the package was designed and on the way in which it operated to put a floor in the market.
Nearly £20 million was allocated from public funds with the objective of putting a floor in the market. That £20 million was the immediate and minimum sum that the British public were asked to guarantee as the cost of the then junior Minister's gaffe. We know now that it was a gaffe. The Select Committee concluded:
We found no evidence to support Mrs. Currie's assertion … That statement should have been immediately corrected. It was a failure of Government and not just of a single Minister, that it was not corrected.
The Government could not respond. They were ill-prepared to deal with the crisis. They failed to respond to earlier warnings. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Department of Health had inadequate arrangements for monitoring public health standards and they fought a semi-public battle for their respective empires. Most critically of all, they did not understand the salmonella problem. Inadequate information existed—and still exists—about salmonella's nature, extent, origins, method of transmission, and effects.
Unbelievably, the Government had cut the very research programmes that would have produced the answers. The Bristol research unit was to be closed. Staff of the state veterinary service had been cut by 20 per cent., and routine inspections of our food manufacturing industry by environmental health officers were a thing of the past. Against that background, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food could not respond adequately because it would have been forced to acknowledge its ignorance. If the Ministry had done that, it would have been compelled to acknowledge also the actions that were perpetuating that ignorance. Here was a disaster waiting to happen, and it did so in the form of the junior Health Minister.
We understand now that the junior Minister was not the innocent victim of the National Farmers Union machine or a valiant battler against the secrecy of the Whitehall battalions. She was neither of those things. She was a silly woman, petulant when exposed as such, and arrogant in her dealings with the Select Committee. Had it not been for timing even more inept than the Ministry's own handling of the matter, when the hon. Lady revealed


that she stood to gain £100,000 from selling her inside story for publication, she might never have appeared before the Select Committee. If any right hon. or hon. Member had any doubts about the propriety or constitutionality of a Select Committee summoning a Member of the House of Commons to appear before it, they would have been dispelled by the histrionics displayed by the hon. Lady up to and on 8 February. It is to the greater credit of the Select Committee's Chairman and members that they resisted that provocation.
The Government are culpable on two counts. If two Cabinet Ministers knew of the inaccuracies of the 3 December statement, as they should have done from their briefings, they should have acted swiftly, unequivocally and emphatically in requiring a retraction and public apology from their errant colleague. Statements in the House distancing Cabinet Ministers from junior Ministers were inadequate. The decision to put up a paid public servant to try to distance the Whitehall machine from a public political statement was also inadequate. There was only one way in which that sin of commission could have been corrected—by the Minister responsible for making a public statement acknowledging that she was wrong, that her statement was wrong, and that the advice that she gave the British public was wrong.
The Secretary of State for Health's refusal to ensure that his junior Minister took the appropriate action and his public refusal to dissociate himself from his junior Minister and to dismiss her make him complicit in that sin of commission—[Interruption.] I am glad that I am striking a chord with my hon. Friends. I am not inviting my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover to intervene, but if he wishes to do so, I shall be happy to let him. It is clear that neither of the Ministers understood, and certainly did not indicate, that their concern for their political and office interests was more pressing than their concern for the public good.
During the mounting crisis, the Minister of Agriculture signally failed to take preventive or remedial action. He could have introduced routine monitoring of laying flocks, but he did not. He could have prevented the sale of eggs from flocks that were known to be contaminated, but he did not. He could have commissioned further research to gain greater understanding of the problem, but he did not. He could have closed processing plants that were known by him to be producing contaminated feedstuffs, but he did not. Nor did he prosecute persistent offenders as the law empowered him to do.
The Select Committee stated:
It is a severe criticism of MAFF that a public health problem in eggs was required before they saw fit to act".
That is the conclusion that I invite the House to endorse. The Select Committee report concluded:
We welcome those steps which the Government has taken during the course of our inquiry and expect that, with full implementation of the above recommendations, public confidence can be restored in the safety and purity of eggs.
I hope that it can be. I must say, however, that I place rather less faith in the Government's proclamation than does the Select Committee.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Would my hon. Friend accept that the steps taken by the Government have been directed exclusively at poultry farmers? The manufacturers of poultry farming equipment have suffered grave losses and a lack of orders and are facing

redundancies, yet the Government have consistently refused to do anything for that industry, which they have damaged in addition to the poultry farmers.

Mr. Davies: Yes. My hon. Friend mentions the consequences on manufacturing industry, which might be a constituency matter, resulting from the recession in the poultry industry. Far be it from me to encourage others to litigate, but I believe that legal cases are outstanding against the former Health Minister.

Mr. Cryer: That does not help now.

Mr. Davies: I agree with my hon. Friend. I assure him that if the roles were reversed and I was standing at the other Dispatch Box and my hon. Friend was in his usual place below the Gangway, I should invite him to the Ministry in Whitehall place first thing tomorrow morning. I should say to him, as I am wont to do in these matters, "Bob, you just come along to the MAFF office at 9 o'clock in the morning and present that case to me, tell me how your constituents are suffering and what you expect me to do and I guarantee that the full resources of the Whitehall machine will swing into action behind your interests." I invite my hon. Friend to test the Minister when he replies to the debate to see whether he gets the reply that he now knows he would get from me if I were the Minister and not: a member of the Opposition.
The Minister never fails to trumpet the 17 initiatives that have emerged from that hive of activity which passes for a MAFF press office in Whitehall place. If there was one note of discord, it was heard earlier in the debate when my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields was. challenging the Minister about the effectiveness of those 17 measures.
For the sake of accuracy, let us put the Government's position on record. They recognised the problem in December and said that they would introduce a financial rescue package to put a floor under the egg industry. That has worked and we have all commended the Government for it. But then they said that it could never happen again. They said that they would introduce a package. MAFF said so in early December. By a process of planted parliamentary questions, statements to the House and speeches in debates on this and other occasions, various spokesmen for the Ministry as well as their glossy press handouts have all said, "We have acted—we have introduced 17 new measures that will all fit together to ensure that all sectors of the poultry industry, from the processors of protein to the millers of food, to the breeders of laying flocks and those who are responsible for egg production, right down to the packers and those who guarantee the freshness of deliveries to the door will be tightly regulated and never again will the problem of salmonella occur." The Minister has stated that clearly and unambiguously in parliamentary answers and press releases. When he was challenged earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields he was happy to jump up and say, "We have the 17 initiatives, we have acted, what more can you expect." He flapped his wings but he did not quite take off.
On 18 January and again on 3 March, in reply to a parliamentary question from my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields, the Minister listed his comprehensive programme for action, being his Department's response to the salmonella in eggs affair. The details were less impressive than the presentation would have us believe.
The 17 measures included five guidelines, being voluntary codes of practice, for producers. Last year, statutory codes regulating the rendering of protein feedstuffs were in force. On several occasions Ministry inspections revealed that they were producing and distributing salmonella-infested faeces. On many occasions those plants were reinspected, but nothing was done. On a third inspection, 50 per cent. of those reinspected were found still to be producing infected feedstuffs.
The Ministry is empowered to prosecute. The regulations do not say that the Ministry should send an ADAS adviser for a quiet chat. They do not say that the Ministry shall simply advise. We hope that the Ministry will advise in advance, to prevent a problem arising in the first place, and I appreciate that a prosecution might not be undertaken in the first instance. But those concerned must be told, "People are dying from salmonella poisoning. A whole industry has been threatened by your actions. If we come back a second time and you are still producing infected feedstuffs, we will prosecute." I cannot understand how, on a third occasion, such plants could be found to be breaking the law yet there is a refusal to prosecute.
That happens with a statutory code. Now the Minister is saying that, of the 17 initiatives, five are voluntary codes. If he does not enforce a statutory code, what confidence can we have that these voluntary codes, without the backing of law, will be enforced? We can have no confidence at all.
Thus, five of the measures are merely guidelines. Five are orders, but they will have statutory force. We are now well into March and there is no sign yet of those orders. They have not yet been laid before Parliament. All the intitiatives of which the Minister has spoken and all the information that he has been trailing, through planted questions—and all the information that he gave to the Select Committee about these brave initiatives—have yet to appear. The five with teeth have not yet been laid.
How on earth can we, in debating the Select Committee's report, form a judgment when we do not even know what the orders will contain? It is all very well for the Minister to say, "We shall introduce orders to do this or that," but we are entitled to reserve our judgment until we see them and find out if they get the approval of Parliament. Until the orders have been debated and we have been able to assess their efficacy—indeed, until we know whether they have the approval of Parliament—we cannot assess their worth.
Of the 17 new initiatives, therefore, five are voluntary codes and five are orders which have not yet been laid before Parliament. It is not an impressive record, and it does not get better. Three of the 17 initiatives are changes in administrative procedures. The Government of the day have been empowered since 1975 to make such changes. Throughout the 1980s, when the problem of salmonella was building up—and critically last year, when the Government were receiving all the information from their advisers about the build-up of salmonella, about the 17,000 who had become ill and about people dying—the Government, and in particular the Minister, had no need to wait for a junior Minister at the Department of Health to blow the gaffe.
The Government did not have to wait for the floor to fall through the industry or for warnings from any of the independent bodies that have been maligned in this debate. They had the powers to act—by the stroke of a pen. Without recourse to Parliament they could have taken action.
The 17 measures are not adding up to much: five voluntary codes, five orders not laid, and three administrative measures that could have been taken previously. In addition, one order was in force in February, and one campaign has been launched to educate the public in the hygienic handling of food. That is not bad—we have got one out of 15 so far. The more observant of my hon. Friends will recall that we are dealing with 17 initiatives, not 15. That leaves two that still have to be accounted for.
Every day for the past week I have been to the Vote Office asking for a copy of the Zoonoses Order—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover asks, "What is that?" [Laughter.] That is what I heard, and I know that my hon. Friend would deprecate any suggestion that we should use anything but the most proper language. I asked the Vote Office for a copy of the Zoonoses Order; I asked the Library for a copy; I asked the Minister's own press department for a copy. They all said, "We do not know what the Zoonoses Order is."[Interruption.] Yes, that is what they said. Actually, they said, "We would like to give it to you, Mr. Davies, but we do not know what it is."
Just before this debate I was fortunate, through a friend who is also a friend of the Minister, to obtain a photocopy of the Zoonoses Order 1989, No. 285, which is not available to any other Member of the House or, incidentally, to the poultry industry which is supposed to be applying it. Apparently the order was made on 28 February, to come into force on 1 March. If we were charitable and assumed that the one-day debate did not reflect any degree of urgency on the Minister's part, if we were charitable and assumed that the Ministry actually knew what it was doing and had laid these orders as part of a carefully programmed campaign, we could believe what we have been told. The fact of the matter is that the Zoonoses Order 1989, No. 285, is not required; the Ministry already has power, under the 1975 legislation, to implement what it is now legislating for.
If we were to have any confidence in the Ministry's handling of the situation, if we were to believe that the Minister had learnt the lessons of the events of 1988, we could reasonably expect the 17 initiatives announced by the Ministry to amount to a little more than a few promises and one botched order that the people responsible for implementing it have not yet even received. So much for the Minister's much-vaunted 17-point initiative. That order—the only one with teeth—has not yet been tabled. It was supposed to be implemented on 1 March—a week ago—but it has not yet been tabled. Copies are not available, and no one in the poultry industry has yet had sight of it.
Hon. Members on the Government side are shaking their heads as if to suggest that what I am saying could not be true. I invite them—[Interruption.] If they are so unconcerned about these matters, it would be understandable that they should not appear for agriculture debates, but if they have come along to lend support to the Minister I should have thought they would at least have satisfied themselves as to the credibility of what the Minister is


doing on their behalf. I challenge them, so that they may so satisfy themselves, to go to the Vote Office—if they have sufficient confidence in their own Minister, if they believe in these 17 initiatives—and ask for a copy of the order. If they will not do so, we can only conclude that they assume that MAFF has not yet learnt the lessons of 1988.
If there is one conclusion to be drawn from this debate and from the Select Committee's report, it is not about the vanity of one junior Minister in the Department of Health, or even about the rivalry of two senior Ministers in the Department of Health and in the Ministry of Agriculture. It is about the inability of a great Department of state to respond to the conflicting pressures of producers and consumers. That presents a challenge to the Government. It is a challenge that they, and they alone, must meet because the health of the British consumer is at stake.

Mr. Ryder: With the leave of the House, may I say that I greatly enjoyed the brief exchange between the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) and the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) when they were considering together the prospect of a future Labour Government in which the hon. Member for Caerphilly was a Minister and the hon. Member for Bradford, South was not. It is inconceivable that if a Labour Government were elected the hon. Members for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and for Bradford, South would not be part of that Administration. I can see it now—Foreign Secretary, the hon. Member for Bolsover, the man who has never travelled abroad up to now. On second thoughts, it would be the hon. Member for Bradford, South who would be Foreign Secretary. After all, he has great experience of representing people in two Parliaments.
I have greatly enjoyed the debate. It has fully matched the fluency and clarity of the report by the Select Committee. I have already spoken in the debate. It is unusual for the same Minister to speak twice on an Estimates day, so I shall be brief.
At the start of the debate I stressed that I was not giving the Government's official response to the report. That will come later and doubtless there will be future opportunities to debate the question. We have heard well-informed and perceptive speeches from several of my right hon. and hon. Friends, including my hon. Friends the Members for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Marland), for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), for Bromsgrove (Sir H. Miller), for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton), for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) and for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen). We had a balanced and authoritative opening speech from the Chairman of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin). I have also been struck by the obvious interest and knowledge of several Opposition Members. The Select Committee is fortunate to have them as members.
The hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) and the hon. Member for Caerphilly queried that 17 measures, already announced by the Government, have been introduced. The hon. Member for South Shields alleged originally that only two of those measures had been introduced. In an intervention I pointed out to him that that was not the case. We have introduced far more. Some are still to come, but I read out to him at least five or six

that we have introduced, and there are others. If he will put down a series of questions I shall be delighted to set out in detail precisely what we have done.
The hon. Member for South Shields was concerned about eggs that were allowed to enter the food chain from farms implicated in food poisoning outbreaks. I understand his concern. However, the position is not straightforward. In some cases the link between a farm and food poisoning was unclear. In others the owner followed the state veterinary service's advice to improve hygiene and reduce the risk of salmonella. Some slaughtered their flocks voluntarily and in some cases subsequent bacteriological examination yielded negative results.
Several hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton, were concerned about imports. The port health authorities are sampling imported eggs. I understand that up to now they have all proved to be negative. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry observed, such sampling is difficult. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton recognised in his informative speech, salmonella enteritidis phage 4 is an international problem and must be tackled at source on an international basis. That is why, as a Government, we welcomed the establishment by the EEC standing veterinary committee on 7 December of a sub-committee to look into this specific issue. My right hon. Friend the Minister has also initiated bilateral discussions with our EEC partners as well as with our United States counterparts.
My hon. Friend the Member for Daventry inquired about eggs from broiler breeder flocks. If we had reason to believe that there was a problem in a broiler breeder flock, and eggs were being sold from that flock for human consumption, we would, of course, put restrictions on the flock to prevent the sale of eggs for human consumption.
The hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew), who is not in his place, mentioned that the chief medical officer said in his evidence to the Select Committee that the level of contamination of eggs from Spain was between one in 100 and one in 1,000 and that, therefore, there was a risk to us from importing Spanish eggs. I understand that the chief medical officer was quoting an article from the Lancet that reported the levels detected in one or two flocks in Spain. We do not know whether that data is representative of Spanish flocks or eggs as a whole.
The hon. Member for Carlisle asked, too, about the proportion of food poisoning cases resulting from people returning from overseas. I understand that up to October that was 14 per cent. in 1988.
The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), whose contributions to these debates I always enjoy, talked about the relative merits of free-range versus battery eggs. As I believe the hon. Gentleman knows, there is no conclusive evidence to show that one system is any safer than the other.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove inquired about restrictions. Each case will be treated on its merits. Ministry veterinary surgeons will sample where salmonella infection is suspected on a house-by-house basis. If any birds in one house prove positive, all birds in that house will be slaughtered. If none is positive, none will be slaughtered. The veterinary surgeons will envisage killing out an entire farm only if all the birds are together in a single flock or if each separate house is found to contain infected birds.
The hon. Member for Caerphilly enjoyed himself, as he always does, when making his reply and teased us about the Zoonoses Order of 1989. I shall clarify matters for him, because he seemed uncertain about the nature of the order. Ministers have signed an order which came into effect on 1 March providing for compulsory slaughter and compensation where salmonella infection is confirmed in a poultry flock. As well as providing new powers, the Zoonoses Order of 1989 re-enacts the Zoonoses Order of 1975 and strengthens the requirements to report the results of tests that identify the presence of salmonella. The reporting requirement applies to any identification of a salmonella organism by a serological or any other examination either in a laboratory or elsewhere.

Mr. Ron Davies: I am grateful to the Minister for confirming that that order has now been implemented. Will the Minister tell us when he intends letting us have a copy?

Mr. Ryder: If the hon. Gentleman has had any difficulty in obtaining a copy, I shall gladly take the first opportunity to put that matter right.
I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare and the members of his Committee for providing a clear and fluent report that has enabled us to hold such a constructive debate. I look forward to hearing his concluding remarks.

Mr. Wiggin: With the permission of the House, Mr. Speaker, I understand that it is customary for there to be a very brief winding-up speech by the proposer of the business on a day such as this. I start by thanking all hon. Members for their kind remarks, which I take as very much a tribute to all the members of the Select Committee who contributed to the report.
I have considerable sympathy for my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary concerning his remarks on the subject of secrecy in relation to food safety. The very thin dividing line between sensible caution and starting a scare poses a hard problem for him. Whatever happened on this occasion, it was not done properly and I hope that the lessons are seriously learned. He also mentioned the interesting problem of appointing to various committees the professional consumer. I hope that he will be very cautious before going too far down that road. We are all consumers and the concept that on every committee there has to be a consumer rather troubles me.
I hope that my hon. Friend and the hon. Members for South Shields (Dr. Clark) and for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) will forgive me if I treat their exchanges on governmental and Opposition lines as being just that and, in my capacity as Chairman of the Select Committee, leave them to settle their differences.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen)—I have to say how much nicer his constituency sounded when it was called Oswestry—unquestionably made one of the outstanding speeches of the afternoon. He pointed out that the Select Committee, as it progressed, had helped to establish parameters for all Select Committees in all their activities in the future. I am grateful for that acknowledgement. He also used the most splendidly delicate words in criticising his colleagues. I

hope that if I ever have to be criticised it will be by him, since no one uses the English language better or to greater effect.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Well, where is he?

Mr. Wiggin: He rightly concluded his remarks by pointing out that laws on the safety of food and feeding stuffs must be enforceable and must be enforced.
The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), who is, I know, an expert on birds—indeed, we have enjoyed his knowledge and company on foreign travel, when he has entertained us greatly with his deep knowledge—touched on the very difficult question of free-range eggs and batteries. I refrained from interrupting him, but I have to point out that there is no way in which human beings can adjudge the happiness or otherwise of the hen except by the very reasonable indicator of how many eggs it lays. Anyone who has ever studied this matter will find that, amazing as it may seem to us, the battery hen in its controlled environment produces rather more eggs than are produced by most other methods. However, it is not the job of the Select Committee to adjudge this most tricky matter.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sir H. Miller) was almost alone in his criticism of the Select Committee report, although my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow), who unfortunately has just left the Chamber, also voiced on Thursday some critical comments. I have to say to my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove that his attempts to cross-quote my remarks during the time that I was Parliamentary Secretary at the Ministry of Agriculture were rather fruitless in that all his quotations were from things said before the discovery, or even the start, of this particular problem of enteritidis in chickens, which did not start until at least 12 months after I left the Ministry. I am particularly sorry about his changed view, since his earlier, rather enthusiastic support for poultry producers seems to have vanished.
The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells) made some particularly kind personal remarks, which I much appreciated.
My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton), who has been a most assiduous supporter and attender of the Committee, rightly made some important comments about hygiene in the kitchen. It is a recurring theme that hygiene in the kitchen is just as important as anything that might take place on the farm or in the production chain.
The hon. Members for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew), for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones) and for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald), who are all members of the Select Committee, represent a new and extremely energetic entry on the Opposition Benches. I respect their political comprehension and am acutely aware of it because they helped to maintain an important balance on the Committee. I congratulate them on their assiduity, and I am sure that, shortly, they will all be Front Benchers.
In his—as usual—learned dissertation, my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) mentioned the problems that will come for producers if animal health restrictions are imposed and no compensation is given. If that were to happen, farmers, producers and advisers would not come forward voluntarily to report disease, so


it would be passed on. I accept that point. I was pleased about my hon. Friend's appointment to the Agricultural and Food Research Council, to which I am sure he will make a great contribution. He will also help our contacts with it.
In his usual enthusiastic way, my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Marland) praised the intervention scheme—although I suspect that his remarks will prove as fatal for the microwave oven industry as those of my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) were for the egg industry. If he finds that at his meeting in the Forest of Dean he encounters a number of Japanese gentlemen protesting about what he said, it will be his own fault.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), who is always an expert on constitutional and procedural matters, referred us to the Standing Orders on the referral of Members to appear before Select Committees. May I remind him that the Standing Order that might have been invoked on this matter was passed in about 1688. He wondered whether an hon. Member, appearing as a witness before a Select Committee, had to say or contribute anything, but, happily, the sanctions that existed in 1688 no longer exist. I wonder whether he has pursued the matter to its intellectual end. When Sir Leon Brittan appeared before the Select Committee on Defence in similar circumstances, he refused to answer many questions without having sanctions imposed on him.
As to the remark of my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton that women's institutes would read the Committee's report with interest—the mind boggles. One imagines that, after tea and the singing of Jerusalem, the president would read excerpts from the Select Committee

report about salmonella in eggs. I think that things in Devonshire are different from those in my part of the world.
The hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) rightly made some valid points about the suffering of producers in Northern Ireland, despite the fact that they have a clean bill of health.
With his usual assiduity and fresh approach, my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) discussed the political executive interplay in an interesting speech which I am sure will be carefully studied by Ministers. The press department of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is unlikely to be as wide awake on Saturday afternoons as he expects. The real world may be a little different from his suggestion.
The hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) rightly commented on the narrow profit margins in the production of eggs. The evidence shows that that problem still prevails throughout the industry.
This has been an extremely worthwhile debate. I know that we are under pressure of time. I wish that we could have these debates more often. At the end of a fairly lengthy, and yet energetic investigation, it is helpful to be able to debate such matters on the Floor of the House without the constraints of secrecy entailed in the preparation of a report, and to receive valuable contributions from hon. Members who are not on the Select Committee.
With an important festival—associated with traditional fare—ahead, may I wish all those involved in this extraordinary matter a happy Easter?

The Question necessary to dispose of the proceedings was deferred, pursuant to paragraph (4) of Standing Order No. 52 (Consideration of Estimates) and the Order /28 February].

Overseas Students (Funding)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Timothy Eggar): I am grateful to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee for this opportunity to debate our policy on overseas students. The House has seen the evidence given to the Select Committee by officials of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. So hon. Members already have a good idea of what we are doing in this area, why and how we are doing it, and what we aim to do in the future.
The Government are committed to bringing more students from overseas to study in Britain. In the current financial year we have spent more than £110 million to assist more than 22,000 foreign students to study here. Only four years ago, the figure was just over 17,000 students for an expenditure of £79 million.
Government-funded schemes have already helped to increase the number of overseas students studying in universities in Britain. By 1987 there were more overseas students on degree or postgraduate courses in the United Kingdom than in 1978; and 1978 was the previous peak year, before full-cost fees were introduced. At the level below degree courses the decline has not been reversed, but in the past 10 years there has been a marked improvement in higher education in developing countries—indeed, our aid programme has contributed to that improvement.
Before 1980, there was an indiscriminate subsidy for all overseas students. Now we target our expenditure to achieve pre-determined objectives. We have gained the flexibility to take on new objectives when they arise. For example, two years ago, the Overseas Development Administration set up the Sino-British friendship scholarship scheme, jointly funded with the Sir Y. K. Pao foundation and the Government of China. The FCO recently set up schemes for Hong Kong, and the ODA has introduced schemes for black South Africans.
We have also been able to respond to the challenge of glasnost, with scholarships for Hungary, Poland and the Soviet Union financed in partnership with the Soros foundation and Oxford university. We plan more scholarship activity in eastern Europe over the next three years. We particularly aim to respond to the requests that we have had from eastern Europe for help with business studies courses.
We aim, too, to help to meet the challenge of 1992 with more scholarships for students from European Community countries, who have been coming to British universities increasingly in the last few years. We have just launched the Jean Monnet scheme, marking the centenary of his birth, with a number of scholarships for French students.
By far the largest part of our overseas scholarship expenditure comes from the aid programme. The vast majority—more than 85 per cent—of the students who receive assistance come from developing countries.
Recently the ODA has been targeting its technical co-operation and training programme awards more firmly on the development aid projects that it is financing. But it has also decided to route some of its money through the Foreign and Commonwealth Office scholarships and awards scheme. That is because under the FCOSAS, like

the British Council fellowships scheme, the aim has been to select the leaders, the decision-takers and the opinion-formers of the successor generation. In addition, the ODA-funded awards must be in subjects relevant to the economic, scientific and social development of the recipient country. In this way we enable students to play the fullest role in helping development at home and in benefiting Britain's relations with that country.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Does the Minister accept that a criticism that can be levelled at the criteria used by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is that the choice of students on schemes is based first on British interests and only second on the interests of developing countries? Would it not be better if it were made much clearer that the interests of developing countries should come first and domestic interests second?

Mr. Eggar: I find it rather surprising that the hon. Gentleman should be surprised that, in making scholarships avaiable, we should not give a degree of priority to British interests, which is a key objective. All scholarship schemes financed by the Overseas Development Administration are discussed with host Governments and are agreed by the ODA and the Government concerned. I have already said that the ODA is increasingly focusing its scholarship expenditure on courses and degrees that are relevant to the particular development aid that it is giving the country concerned, so the scholarships are carefully co-ordinated.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my hon. Friend accept that members of the Commonwealth are especially glad to receive scholarships not only in technical subjects but in administration at Government level? A Malaysian Minister said to me years ago that if someone goes to a British university it will affect him throughout his life. He said, "My wife went to an American university. She starts the day with coffee and reads the New York Herald Tribune. I went to a British university. I start the day with tea, I read The Times and my interests are wholly those of the Commonwealth and Britain." It is extremely important not to exclude the administrative layer.

Mr. Eggar: I agree with my hon. Friend. Only this afternoon, I had an interesting discussion with the Peruvian Minister of Health who was here for the ozone layer conference. He told me that he had done a postgraduate degree in medicine at Manchester university and that there were close contacts between that university and the health sector in Peru since his return. My hon. Friend's comment applies not only to Commonwealth countries, but to all countries. There is quite a high correlation between people who study here and those who retain ties of one kind or another with the United Kingdom. That is one of the significant justifications for our putting money into scholarship schemes.
The ODA has recently introduced a jointly-funded scheme specifically for Commonwealth developing countries. That was the personal initiative of my right hon. Friend the Member of Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) when he was Minister for Overseas Development. Known as the ODA shared scholarship scheme, it has 250 award-holders in the current year. The ODA contribution to their costs is L1-4 million and the rest is found by the participating


universities and polytechnics, which are free to raise a part, or indeed all, of the balance from private sector contributions.
We believe that private sector involvement in overseas scholarship activity is extremely important. If our scholarship schemes are to reflect British interests appropriately, their priorities must include those of industry, commerce and the financial sector. Everyone agrees that in bringing foreign students to this country we are making an investment in the future. But we look to the private sector to pay more than just lip service to that idea, which is why we have been placing increasing emphasis on jointly-funded schemes. We share the cost of funding with private sector partners and also with the receiving academic institutions—helping, incidentally, in the process, to build much needed links between those institutions and private sector companies. It is not just a matter of finance. It is also a question of involvement in, and commitment to, an enterprise that will bring long-term benefit to this country.
The FCO scholarships and awards scheme also has its jointly-funded component, made up of direct partnership with the private sector and with academic institutions. There are 17 such jointly-funded partnerships in operation under the FCOSAS at present, with 156 award holders this financial year, at a total cost to the FCO of just under £500,000. Last year, the scheme looked after about 80 students at half this year's cost. To give but one example, we have a joint operation with British Gas and Strathclyde university encouraging students from Malaysia, India, Indonesia, Bangladesh and Turkey to come to study engineering, applied science and business administration.
Our diplomatic missions overseas have identified further partners for joint funding. We have just appointed an adviser on overseas scholarship funding, Mr. David Thomas, whose job will be to canvass support among private sector firms and foundations and the academic institutions. I hope that hon. Members will draw the scheme's availability to the attention of firms in their constituencies and elsewhere.
Government funding for overseas students, whether directly in terms of scholarships or indirectly in terms of support, has been a growth area over the past few years. That growth is set to continue, but our expenditure will be carefully targeted through a range of programmes that will give us the flexibility to achieve properly identified objectives. Since 1980 we have replaced indiscriminate subsidy with judicious selection, and that process will continue.

Mr. George Foulkes: The Opposition welcome the opportunity to discuss the subject of overseas students in the United Kingdom. We also pay tribute to the part played by the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs in pursuing the matter, although we were astonished that the Government's response to the Committee's fourth report did not even mention overseas students. That was an unfortunate lapse.
It is appropriate to remind ourselves, as the Minister did, of the real value of providing education for overseas students in the United Kingdom, which benefits both the students themselves and our country. We have a responsibility within the international community, and

particularly within the Commonwealth—as the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) pointed out—to contribute substantially to education in the Third world. It is also helpful in developing our commerce and trade if decision-makers in other countries have been educated here and understand our system and our way of life. It is also of immeasurable value in diplomatic and political terms.
At my university of Edinburgh—my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), unfortunately, went to another university—we were proud to have provided education for Julius Nyerere and Hastings Banda, despite their different philosophies and ways of running their countries, as well as for many others who ended up running their countries and who recall their time at Edinburgh with fond memories which can reflect nothing but good on the whole United Kingdom. It was also an enriching and educating experience for British students to study alongside people from other parts of the world—although I hasten to add that I was not there at the same time as Julius Nyerere or Hastings Banda.
This is one of the most valuable forms of assistance that we can give to developing countries, particularly in certain appropriate and relevant courses. Some of the key courses, unfortunately, have suffered from Government policy in the past few years. I believe, however, that the original 1967 decision on differential fees was wrong in principle, and I strongly opposed it at the time—not here, but as president of the Scottish Union of Students. My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton was vice-president, so he has moved up a bit since then. The really harmful decision, however, was the move to full-cost fees in November 1979. This was typical of the Government's policy—in a range of contexts—of putting expenditure cuts before principle. To be fair, however, it was condemned by a number of Conservative Back Benchers.
There was an immediate dramatic reduction in the number of overseas students, from 88,000 in the 1979–80 academic year to just over 56,000 by 1984–85. As the Minister said, there has been a recovery more recently, but we still have a much smaller share of an increasing global demand and there have been significant and unwelcome distortions in the pattern of institutions and in students' countries of origin. The number of overseas students at polytechnics, and particularly at colleges of further education, is still much lower than in 1978, according to the Department's own figures which were collated for the interdepartmental group working party on statistics. In Great Britain as a whole the number of colleges of further education fell by 75 per cent. over that period. It is no use saying that it started before full-cost fees because there were only marginal reductions at that time—the spectacular reduction has taken place since then. Unfortunately, many of those courses are in subjects such as agriculture, intermediate technology and other subjects most useful and appropriate for developing countries.
The distortion between countries is equally unwelcome. For example, there have been increases in students from Germany, France and particularly the Republic of Ireland, where students coming to Britain are subsidised in the same way as British students, and decreases in the numbers from India, Pakistan, Kenya, Zimbabwe and other developing countries. Indeed, the proportion of overseas students in the United Kingdom from OECD countries has risen from 18·4 per cent. to 24·9 per cent. while the proportion from developing countries has fallen from 82·


per cent. to 76·5 per cent. There has thus been a displacement and distortion which is unwelcome to the Opposition.
As the House knows, instead of students from overseas being allowed to come to Britain freely and pay the same subsidised fees as British students, they are now mainly dependent on scholarships from various sources, as the Minister said. It is important to recall, however, that it took three years of very forceful and powerful argument from diplomatic, educational and commercial circles, as well as from the Opposition and from some Conservative Back Benchers, before the then Foreign Secretary announced in 1983 what became known as the "Pym package".
Particularly significant was the work carried out by the National Union of Students, the United Kingdom Council for Overseas Student Affairs—which I had a small part in setting up many years ago—and the Overseas Students Trust, all of which still argue strongly that there is a need for an increase in real terms in the amount spent on award schemes, and the NUS rightly wants much greater flexibility in the allocation of awards between different countries.
As I think most people in the House will know, the most powerful and comprehensive case for greater support was in the Overseas Students Trust's book "The Next Steps". I am getting like the Prime Minister in bringing visual aids into the House, but I am glad that I am not like her in other ways. The Government have accepted some of the recommendations—we welcome, for example, the small new scholarship scheme funded by the Department of Trade and Industry—but there is still no sign of the full £25 million extra that that report said was necessary. Perhaps the Minister can tell us today whether the Government accept the idea in that report that the overseas research students award scheme, ORSAS, should be extended to polytechnics. He might tell us whether they plan to set up the educational purposes award scheme for overseas students below research degree level and to expand the British Council's educational counselling service, all of which were recommended in "The Next Steps".
I pay tribute to the work of the British Council, whose vice-chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, is with us today. I hope that the Minister will say something about those particular recommendations.
If the present Government remain in office and continue their present policy, the future will not be rosy. As my countryman Robert Burns would have said,
And forward though I canna see—I dread and fear".
I dread and fear because the Government's market philosophy is intruding more and more into universities and colleges and the search for overseas students. Already student recruitment fairs have started up in Brussels and Kuala Lumpur, setting up stalls and displays and giving away free carrier bags. At Kuala Lumpur there was a row between certain universities and the British Council which was rightly alarmed at deposit-taking in hotel bedrooms and promises of degrees within five years to students from Malaysia with the equivalent of O-levels. Competition is likely to be fierce because for many universities income from overseas students is vital to their survival. That kind

of market bazaar approach to the recruitment of overseas students was well covered in The Times Higher Education Supplement of 30 December.
Demographic changes within the United Kingdom will exacerbate the problem, with the number of 17-year-olds falling dramatically by about 30 per cent. by the end of the century. The two displacements that I described earlier towards universities and away from polytechnics and further education and towards developed countries and away from developing countries will be exacerbated by the market approach.
The Opposition would like to see a much better planned and co-ordinated Government approach to overseas students, with the complex and increasingly sidetracked advisory round table and the inter-departmental group streamlined so that the activities of the Department of Education and Science, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Overseas Development Agency, all of which have a legitimate interest in this, could be better co-ordinated with regular top level advice from academics and industrialists as well as from Government. The round table has not met for 15 months and I am told that the last meeting, under the chairmanship of the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science, the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson), was more like an Oxbridge seminar—as one might expect, given the hon. Gentleman's background—than a business meeting. Unless there is some speedy solution to the Government-inspired dispute in higher education, the work of all our students will be in peril and overseas students will be particularly hard hit.
I mentioned earlier the work of the Overseas Students Trust. In its report, "The Next Steps", it pays tribute to the vital support and collaboration of the Fund for International Student Co-operation in producing the report and in its work generally. It represents the kind of public and private collaboration often praised by Government spokesmen, with the private funding to the trust complemented by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office grant to FISC. It was therefore with great dismay that I heard recently that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office grant to FISC is to end. We are due an explanation from the Minister which I hope he will be able to give later in the debate. There seems to be no reason for that decision unless it be that the excellent work of the OST-FISC consortium may have caused the Government some embarrassment so retribution has to be exacted. I hope that the Minister will reconsider that regrettable decision.
The importance of overseas students being educated in Britain has never been greater. Yet throughout the important area of the far east we are being overtaken by Germany, by the United States and, as in almost everything else, by Japan. The Japanese have pledged to increase their overseas student population from 10,000 to 100,000 within a decade—they understand the value of training overseas students in their country—and after four years of that decade their overseas student population is already 30,000.
Even in the Government's materialistic terms, overseas students are a good investment. We spend about £110 million of public money on scholarships, but it is estimated that overseas students spend more than £1 billion more than that in Britain, so even in the Government's materialistic terms they are worth while. The real value, however, is not in pounds and pence—1 nearly gave away my age by saying pounds, shillings and pence—but in our contribution to our fellow men. It is a moral commitment


to the countries that our predecessors exploited and which, through the world's financial institutions, we are still exploiting, and the benefit to the international community of the rapid spread of knowledge. I realise that the present Government do not appreciate the importance of those factors, but I give a pledge that the next Government will.

Mr. David Howell: The Select Committee on Foreign Affairs is grateful for this opportunity to have a short debate on the funding of overseas students. As the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) has said, and as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has also said—I hope that he will forgive me for being a couple of minutes late for the beginning of his speech, for rather obvious reasons which I suspect apply to a number of other hon. Members—this is a matter that has interested successive Foreign Affairs Committees. Under my prede—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

MR. SPEAKER proceeded to put forthwith the deferred Question necessary to dispose of the proceedings on Supplementary Estimates, 1988–89 (Class IV, Vote 3).

The House divided: Ayes 175, Noes 31.

Division No. 118]
[10 pm


AYES


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Amess, David
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Amos, Alan
Fishburn, John Dudley


Arbuthnot, James
Forman, Nigel


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Forth, Eric


Atkins, Robert
Fox, Sir Marcus


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Franks, Cecil


Batiste, Spencer
Freeman, Roger


Beggs, Roy
French, Douglas


Bellingham, Henry
Gale, Roger


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Gill, Christopher


Bevan, David Gilroy
Glyn, Dr Alan


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Gow, Ian


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Gregory, Conal


Boswell, Tim
Ground, Patrick


Bottomley, Peter
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Hague, William


Bowis, John
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Bright, Graham
Hannam, John


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Harris, David


Burns, Simon
Haselhurst, Alan


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hayward, Robert


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Carrington, Matthew
Heddle, John


Carttiss, Michael
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Cash, William
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Chapman, Sydney
Howard, Michael


Chope, Christopher
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Churchill, Mr
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Conway, Derek
Howells, Geraint


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Cope, Rt Hon John
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Cran, James
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Davies, Q. (Stami'd &amp; Spald'g)
Irvine, Michael


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Jack, Michael


Day, Stephen
Janman, Tim


Devlin, Tim
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Dorrell, Stephen
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Dover, Den
Key, Robert


Durant, Tony
Kilfedder, James





King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Rhodes James, Robert


Knapman, Roger
Roe, Mrs Marion


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


Knowles, Michael
Ryder, Richard


Lee, John (Pendle)
Sackville, Hon Tom


Lightbown, David
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lilley, Peter
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Stern, Michael


Lord, Michael
Stevens, Lewis


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Maclean, David
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


McLoughlin, Patrick
Sumberg, David


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Malins, Humfrey
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Mans, Keith
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Maude, Hon Francis
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Thorne, Neil


Miller, Sir Hal
Thurnham, Peter


Mills, lain
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Tredinnick, David


Mitchell, Sir David
Trippier, David


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Twinn, Dr Ian


Monro, Sir Hector
Viggers, Peter


Moss, Malcolm
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Needham, Richard
Waller, Gary


Neubert, Michael
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Wells, Bowen


Nicholls, Patrick
Widdecombe, Ann


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Wiggin, Jerry


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Wilshire, David


Norris, Steve
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Winterton, Nicholas


Page, Richard
Wolfson, Mark


Patnick, Irvine
Wood, Timothy


Porter, David (Waveney)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Portillo, Michael



Price, Sir David
Tellers for the Ayes:


Raffan, Keith
Mr. Alan Howarth and Mr. Michael Fallon.


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy



Renton, Tim





NOES


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Macdonald, Calum A.


Blunkett, David
McLeish, Henry


Buckley, George J.
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Murphy, Paul


Cartwright, John
O'Brien, William


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Cousins, Jim
Robertson, George


Darling, Alistair
Salmond, Alex


Dewar, Donald
Soley, Clive


Dixon, Don
Spearing, Nigel


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Vaz, Keith


Fisher, Mark
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Foulkes, George
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Galbraith, Sam



Hood, Jimmy
Tellers for the Noes:


Illsley, Eric
Mr. Bob Cryer and Mr. Dennis Skinner.


Loyden, Eddie



McAvoy, Thomas

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That a supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1989 for expenditure by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on market support, grants and loans for capital and other improvements, support for agriculture in special areas and compensation to sheep producers, animal health, arterial drainage, flood and coast protection, and certain other services.

MR. SPEAKER proceeded to put forthwith the Questions which he was directed to put pursuant to paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 52 (Consideration of Estimates).

ESTIMATES, 1988–89 (ARMY) VOTE A

Resolved,
That during the year ending 31st March 1989 an additional number not exceeding 3,010 all ranks be maintained for the Ulster Defence Regiment.

ESTIMATES, 1989–90 (NAVY) VOTE A

Resolved,
That during the year ending on 31st March 1990 a number not exceeding 68,100 all ranks be maintained for Naval service.

ESTIMATES, 1989–90 (ARMY) VOTE A

Resolved,
That during the year ending on 31st March 1990 a number not exceeding 175,600 all ranks be maintained for Army Service, a number not exceeding 5,000 for the Home Service Force, a number not exceeding 107,000 for the Individual Reserves, a number not exceeding 86,181 for the Territorial Army and a number not exceeding 8,010 for the Ulster Defence Regiment.

ESTIMATES, 1989–90 (AIR) VOTE A

Resolved,
That during the year ending on 31st March 1990 a number not exceeding 96,000 all ranks be maintained for the Air Force Service, a number not exceeding 8,260 for the Royal Air Force Reserve and a number not exceeding 2,460 for the Royal Auxiliary Air Force.

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1988–89

Resolved,
That a further supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,572,770,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray charges for Defence and Civil Services which will come in the course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1989, as set out in House of Commons Papers Nos. 163, 164 and 226.

ESTIMATES, EXCESSES, 1987–88

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £57,374,576·39, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to make good excesses on certain grants for Defence and Civil Services for the year ended 31st March 1988, as set out in House of Commons Paper No. 161.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (NO. 2) BILL

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the foregoing three resolutions relating to Supplementary Estimates, 1988–89 and to Estimates, Excesses 1987–88, by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. John Major, Mr. Norman Lamont, Mr. Peter Brooke and Mr. Peter Lilley.

Overseas Students (Funding)

Question again proposed, That this House do now adjourn.

Mr. David Howell: I was in the middle of a word at 10 o'clock, so to assist the Hansard writers I will go back to the beginning of the sentence.
My distinguished predecessor as Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Sir Anthony Kershaw, showed, with his Committee, an intensive interest in the funding of overseas students, and the Select Committee was concerned, in the 1980s, about the reactions and complaints of a number of countries around the world some time after the decision had been made to abandon the indiscriminate subsidy for fees.
The Committee concluded, and the House accepts, that this is one public investment that the Government really should be anxious to make overseas. It will enable tomorrow's technicians and shapers of policy, industry and society throughout the developing world and the great markets of Asia, which will be the dominant centre of the global economy in the next 10 or 20 years, to come to this country. They will go through higher education in our universities and other institutions, as well as take post graduate courses. That correct view has been held by hon. Members on both sides of the House, because we have much to offer and much to gain from ensuring that there is a massive flow of overseas students coming through our institutions of higher education. We have the technical expertise and the skills to offer. Those are the heart needs of the aid and development process.
If I were pressed to say where the public and private resources could most usefully go over all the areas of overseas development, I would say rather less in grants and loans and rather more in technical assistance in training and skills and higher education provided to those who then help to shape and develop their own societies. We have much to offer. It is one of the key ways in which we can make our contribution to development in the world. We can also ensure that markets are kept open and that the climate for investment and enterprise is maintained across the planet.
We also have much to gain for other obvious reasons. One should not be apologetic. There will be benefits for out national aims and objectives, about which we should not be shy. A whole generation of people will come to our universities and other institutions of higher education. They will return to their countries and think in terms of our standards and skills, products and services. When they need them, they will look to this country. That must open up opportunities for us to compete in the markets of the world and to hold up our heads in the immensely competitive conditions facing us in the future.
That is precisely why our competitor countries, who also want their place in the sun and the 21st century, are greatly expanding their programmes to encourage students to come from overseas to their universities. It is fascinating to see the way in which a formerly closed country such as Japan, which was extraordinarily inward looking even five years ago, where one saw few overseas students, is now opening its universities and higher education to students. Japan is planning to bring in many overseas students through industry or Government support. A new Japanese empire is emerging. Not everyone necessarily welcomes it.


It is spreading, in economic terms, across the whole of south-east Asia and across eastern Asia, and it has reached many other parts of the world. It is on a scale and has a dynamic that no-one could have dreamed of 10 years ago. it has close links with Japanese standards and technical skills. It makes an ironic mockery of the pattern and history of the first half of this century, when nations such as Japan tried to grab by force, and often surrendered to force in these areas. Now these will be the dynamic and growing areas of the next 30 years. Thousands of students and would-be students are flocking to Japan's universities to learn the technical skills and patterns that will govern their decisions in later life.

Dr. Alan Glyn: Is it not a fact that, because of the rate of exchange, students find it much cheaper to go to the United States than to come here?

Mr. Howell: My colleagues on the Select Committee heard that point of view, but exchange rates go up and down. The cheap dollar has had some advantages but it is not as cheap as it was and it may grow stronger vis-a-vis other currencies. What my hon. Friend suggests has an effect, but it is marginal.
Against that background of the desire to have a healthy flow of overseas students, in the early 1980s, after the decision to remove indiscriminate fee support was taken, there was—this cannot be disguised—a substantial drop in the number of students coming here.
The predecessor Committee to the present Select Committee examined that issue and got the impression that the programme was going backwards. That Committee found, when travelling to places such as Hong Kong and Malaysia, some extremely outspoken complaints that vital links had been broken, and it was not immediately seen how they would be restored. However, the process of restoration has steadily been going on and gradually the numbers have risen again.
The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley gave some figures, but I did not immediately recognise them. No doubt they were right on the basis on which he used them, but it was not the basis on which figures were given by officials of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to the Select Committee.
The Committee was told on 1 March that the number of foreign students in our universities now was considerably higher than in 1978—the previous peak. We were told that, the number is now 45,600 students in universities, whereas the previous peak was 38,900.
That is the good news. The less good news is that we were told that whereas in 1978 there were 22,000 in polytechnics, that had declined to 15,000. It was suggested to the Committee that that reflected, among other things, a changing pattern of demand from the developing countries. It was pointed out, for example, that a number of polytechnic and post-school institutions had developed at a great rate in the developing countries, in newly industrialised economies and in various parts of Asia, so that the demand for such educational places in this country had fallen.
It was pointed out that the demand for places in universities had risen and had apparently been met. The previous concern was that our universities were no longer providing places for thousands of people from overseas who would go home and carry with them what they had

learnt here—the values as well as the skills—and apply it to the development of their societies, industries and commerce. That concern must now be less because the numbers have not only picked up but have overtaken the previous numbers.
Those were all matters to which the present Select Committee returned briefly when looking at the Estimates a year ago, and the Committee commented on them in its fourth report. As is customary, a reply came from the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, making observations on our report, but there must have been a slip-up because, although our report mentioned the finance of overseas students, the reply did not. This led to an exchange of letters—"Dear Geoffrey", "Dear David", "Dear Kenneth", "Dear David", and so on—all of which are printed in the Select Committee minutes of evidence, which have just been published. From these there flowed our decision to have a brief hearing, at which the numbers I have just given were elucidated. This indicates that things are on the mend—changing and improving.
The Secretary of State for Education wrote to the Committee. He was aware of our concern about overseas students and, in particular, about the question of what was happening all these years after the removal of the policy of indiscriminate subsidy for all overseas students. In his letter he said that he could see no grounds for any reconsideration of the policy. However, if one listens closely—this certainly applies to anyone who listened to some of the excellent evidence that was given to the Select. Committee—one can hear the distinct sound of gears being shifted. I believe that there is some change of emphasis. Indeed, my right hon. Friend has confirmed that that is so.
With the transfer of funds from the Overseas Development Administration to the scholarship award system under the FCO, we are witnessing a definite shift, which I think is welcome. I do not fully understand the precise intentions of the strategies, but it seems to me that it is a realistic recognition of the fact that the overseas students in our universities need to come not only from the least developed and poorest countries. This is not just a development programme in the most narrow sense; it is also a programme designed to forge links with, and open up opportunities in, semi-developed countries with the newly industrialised economies that I have mentioned. We have been told that we have more students from Hong Kong than ever before. We have more also from some countries—mainly in eastern Europe—where we have done very little business and had very little influence for half a century. These countries, in an intellectual and political sense, are miserably undeveloped. They will not like me for saying so, but by our standards they are. Anything that we can do to seize the new opportunities and move through the new doors and windows that must now be opening in the frozen Communist bloc, which has been virtually cut off from the trading system of the world for more than half a century, must be good.
If this change of Government policy, this shift of resources, together with the development of the FCO special award scholarship, leads in that direction, and if the expansion of the partnership between Government and the private sector in the provision of resources leads to more scholarships and awards for people from what, a long time ago, we called the iron curtain countries, that will be a very good thing.
In general, of course, the private sector is beginning to play a more vigorous part—working with the Government and indeed taking its own initiatives—in bringing people here for higher education. That must be a good thing. Of course, in that respect we are only following France—which does this on a major scale—Germany and Japan. The familiar pattern is emerging everywhere: the public sector and the private sector mobilising themselves to work together towards goals that are partly to do with public policy and partly to do with the expansion of commerce. They are working together, in new and very successful ways, to achieve what, just a decade ago, were believed to be social goals that could be pursued only at the taxpayers' expense.
All in all, there is a changing picture—perhaps "change of policy" is too precise—in the approach to bringing overseas students here. The numbers overall—and, again, we could have a debate about the precise basis—reflect a substantial rise in those coming to the universities, and a fall in those coming to the polytechnics. It is a pattern which is less alarming than perhaps it seemed a few years ago. The complaints may not have gone completely in Kuala Lumpur or even in Hong Kong but the justification for them is less. It has to be conceded that there is vigour and life in the programme, although I believe that some of my colleagues on the Select Committee will still rightly insist that we should keep an eye on the subject and that we could do better.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell), the Chairman of the Select Committee, has given what one might call conditional approval to Government policy. He was right to point out that it is not yet clear that the results of the cuts of the early part of the decade have been entirely restored in all sectors. The polytechnic sector is the obvious example. It is notable and disappointing that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office did not see fit explicitly to deal with that in its response. I hope that in future, as a matter of principle and of expressing support for the concept of paying for students to come to this country, support will be visible in responses or documents initiated by the FCO itself.
The general view has been clearly evidenced by what has been said. Funding of students to come here, particularly from the Third and Fourth worlds, is one of the best signs of our commitment to development and one of the most positive ways in which we can give specific, up-to-date and pertinent help. My intervention in the Minister's remarks was to suggest that the Government should look more and more to ways in which we can use this policy to assist in our overseas development programme and less to benefit our own domestic prospects. I hope that I am not misrepresenting the right hon. Member for Guildford when I say that I inferred the same from his speech. I am not suggesting that the policy should disappear, but I have a general concern that we do not adequately balance and prioritise between those two naturally complementary policies and that we tend always to put our interests above those of the countries from which the students come.
I wondered whether the Minister would take the opportunity of this debate to deal more specifically with certain matters. The minutes of a recent Select Committee meeting confirm that the Government plan to phase out the FCO's country and territory support schemes. That is what officials of the FCO said, and there is concern about the implications. For example, I should like to know that support for Cyprus, and for other territories and countries where there are no universities, will be continued to the same financial extent.
I understand that there is to be a transfer of schemes rather than the removal of schemes. None the less, the funding criteria are different. If the proposal is that there should be a transfer, as it were, from the specific budget introduced for countries such as Cyprus and Malaysia in 1983 by the then Foreign Secretary, now Lord Pym, to the main FCO special award scholarship budget, some of the advantages of the selective scheme for countries and territories with which we have a particular relationship will be lost. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's comments on the timetable and on the commitment to Malaysia, Cyprus, Bermuda and the Cayman Islands. I understand that there is no doubt that the commitment to Hong Kong will remain.
A second specific matter with which the Minister might deal is whether it will be possible in the near future to extend the ORSAS scheme to polytechnics. The point was made from the Labour Front Bench that at the moment it is not possible. Here I declare an interest—there is no university in my constituency, but there is a polytechnic. That is not, however, why I raise the matter. It is because there is much growth in polytechnics in technical subjects such as engineering which seem to be beneficial. I therefore hope that ORSAS will be extended to polytechnics.
When I and two colleagues from the Conservative and Labour parties visited South Africa, we found that the scheme for funding the education of black South Africans was especially welcomed. If I can attract the Minister's attention, I would urge the Minister to consider whether it is possible to expand the black South African scheme further as it is much appreciated and needed. When my colleagues from the House and I were talking to church, political and educational leaders in southern Africa and especially in South Africa, it was notable that one of the ways in which we could best assist was in the training and teaching of members of the majority black South African community. I therefore urge the Government to give favourable consideration to the expansion of that scheme as I am sure that it has great potential.
Speaking perhaps more from the point of view of my educational responsibilities than from a foreign affairs interest, one of my concerns is that some of the changes in the totals of overseas students in institutions here look as though they may fundamentally affect the security of the overseas student programme within some institutions. For example, I note that the projections for University college, Cardiff—I am aware that the University of Wales has had financial difficulties—are that whereas in 1986–87 there were 1,442 overseas students, by 1991–92 the figure will be down by 368. I wonder whether it would be appropriate to look again at the way in which a large number of university institutions—I am not talking about polytechnics—will lose quite substantial numbers of overseas students. On the face of it, that does not appear necessarily to be justified. I understand that within the educational debate in Britain there are sometimes arguments for rationalising courses, but that does not necessarily mean that so many


institutions should be affected by reductions in overseas students. Overseas students do not just contribute their particular training needs and experience; but they add to the dimension of that university or institution of higher education. I can say that as someone who spent a year studying abroad and benefited greatly.
The Minister did not allude to the concerns expressed about the recent announcement of the imminent 10 per cent. increase in fees. I understand that one of its implications will be that from next year universities will be free to set their own student fees and that there will therefore be much more of a free market for fee setting. It would be helpful if the Minister could comment on the expected consequences of that as at present there is a fixed regime and a more competitive scheme would clearly have many more unpredictable consequences.
I have a further concern, based principally on constituency experience, that there are still often inadequate support mechanisms for people who come here. That has various manifestations. I am concerned that there are disreputable institutions purporting to be good institutions of further education which have not yet been dealt with by the Education Reform Act 1988. To be honest, some institutions—especially language schools—fleece their students. No approval, either implicit or explicit, should be given to such institutions. I am aware that that is not the principal destination of the category of people about whom we are talking, but not insubstantial numbers of foreign students nevertheless end up in clearly disreputable institutions. That problem needs further attention, not just from the Minister's Department but from the Department of Education and Science. I am not being critical of that Department as the problem has not been ignored, but there are still such institutions recruiting unjustifiably.
The other problem brought to our attention in our mail and from the advice centres, especially in urban areas which have large numbers of ethnic minority communities, including large numbers of overseas students, is that sometimes it would be beneficial if the Home Office were less restrictive in its rules forbidding any sort of work experience. People who come here to study for a university degree or to take a higher education course would often benefit greatly from being able to combine some work experience with their studies. I am not suggesting that they should come here and then have a series of jobs, but they could do some form of work linked with their course, whether it he a sandwich course or some other type. I do not expect an immediate response, but I hope that the Minister, his colleagues and Home Office Ministers will consider the rules which, at the moment, often inhibit people who could benefit greatly from a slightly broader mix of experience, both academic and practical.
I hope that the Government will continue the course that the Chairman of the Select Committee has encouraged them to follow, and will increase the budget for overseas students and the number of countries and programmes which benefit from it. That is one of the most obvious ways of being seen to be committed to the proper and long-term development of less advantaged and less prosperous countries. We owe it to those countries to give of our academic and economic richness. I hope that the programme will be substantially expanded in years to come.

Mr. Michael Jopling: In tonight's previous debate the Select Committee on Agriculture congratulated itself on the fact that we could discuss a report which had been published only last week. We should express some satisfaction on the fact that we are debating now a subject on which the key document before the House was published only yesterday.
This has been, and continues to be, a helpful debate on what I regard as a vital subject. I wonder whether the Minister has considered why we are having it. Perhaps the principal reason is that the Select Committee's previous report was ignored by the Foreign Office in its reply, which I regret. I hope that the Minister will tell his departmental colleagues that they should not behave in that way.
I have long experience of departmental Select Committees and served on the Crossman Select Committees in the 1960s, when we had some pithy debates on Government action. In 1979 and 1980 I played a major part with Lord St. John of Fawsley, the then Leader of the House, in setting up the current family of Select Committees which I believe in passionately. They play an important part in the life of the House.
I hope that the Minister will tell his officials that, in future, they should learn to understand that Select Committees can bite—this one in particular is prepared to make its teeth meet. They should not impose a discourtesy on the Foreign Affairs Select Committee such as they did on this occasion. I make that comment as a warning and I hope that the Minister will tell his officials that the Select Committee members will not tolerate being treated like this in the future.
I especially want to applaud the specific foreign policy and developmental objectives which are set out in paragraph 3 of the paper presented to the Select Committee by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. In view of some of the comments, most of which I strongly agree with, it is right to begin by applauding the Foreign Office's general objectives, which are to
win influential friends overseas by enabling future leaders, decision makers and opinion forrners from all walks of life to study in the United Kingdom … help the development of manpower skills and resources in developing countries … promote the security and prosperity of the United Kingdom by cultivating good political and commercial relations with other countries.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) earlier made an intervention on precisely this point. I warmly support what she said. My right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) made the same crucial point. It seems to have been included in the Foreign Office's objectives.
Travelling abroad and observing the political and commercial life of other countries, one often discovers that—surprise, surprise—the people are using the methods and equipment of the countries in which they were trained. Educating such people is the best investment that we can possibly make. I well remember, in a previous incarnation, visiting Malaysia a few years ago. I vividly remember the resentment and ill feeling there.
I rejoice that the overall trend of expenditure on overseas students is increasing so dramatically. I congratulate the Foreign Office and the other Departments concerned on the figures, which are clearly set out on page 7 of the Select Committee's minutes of evidence. They are worth repeating to the House. The


amount spent on overseas students has risen from £79·65 million in 1985–86 to £111·41 million in 1988–89. At the same time, the number of award holders has increased from 17,918 to 22,757. That is a commendable increase, of which the Government are entitled to be proud.
I asked the Minister's officials a question in the Committee which proved difficult for them to answer then. After the public expenditure survey committee, last autumn, when the figures were discussed by all the Departments concerned—the ODA, the Foreign Office, the British Council, the Department of Education and Science and the Department of Trade and Industry—the figures for the trend over the next few years must have been clear. An official helpfully told the Committee that, for the Foreign Office's part, we could expect an extra £10 million, involving an extra 1,000 students, in the next two or three years, over and above the 1988 figures.
It would help the Committee and the House to know the precise projections of expenditure and the number of award holders that may be expected in the next few years—the figures, in short, which are covered in the PESC and the White Paper. My hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor) asked a specific question about this; he had an advantage that I did not enjoy when I was in the Select Committee—a copy of the White Paper before him. The answer that he got was not very clear. I do not criticise that, but if the Minister could give us a clearer one it would help the Government's case, if nothing else.
A matter that I raised in the Committee and which has been mentioned by hon. Members this evening is the proportion of award holders who come from developing countries. That number is of crucial interest to the House. In general, we believe that the bulk of the effort should be directed towards these students. We were again given a most helpful answer, which is on page 12 of the Select Committee's report, and we were told that £93 million out of the £110 million goes to students from developing countries. We were also told that about 18,000 of the 22,750 students come from developing countries. That sounded fine and I was delighted to hear that figure.
However, the figure was somewhat blurred when, in reply to the question of my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford, we were told that some of those students come from Hong Kong. I do not regard Hong Kong as a developing country and I wonder whether my hon. Friend will be kind enough to give us figures—and I have to put this in vague terms myself—for the amount of money and the number of students who come from real developing countries, rather than from countries such as Hong Kong. It is important that we should know the proportion that goes to the students for whom we believe help is most needed. I am not saying that we should not help students from more developed countries, but I am sure that we would like most of the help to go to the countries that need it most.
My final point is one that we discussed with the officials in the Select Committee and concerns the priorities given in developing countries to assisting people in training for the basic and essential vocations. I hope that the Government will do all that they can—in a tactful way, of course—to channel students who come here from developing countries into those studies that are most appropriate to the countries concerned. I do not need to

lecture the House on the fact that developing countries need, above all, to develop their basic industries, agriculture, education system and infrastructure, rather than some of the more fancy pursuits and studies which some students may be tempted to pursue. It was made clear by the officials that that is difficult and must be handled tactfully. I take that point, but I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to tell us that every effort is made by our posts abroad, who handle these matters in the front line, to channel the studies of students who come here into the pursuits and studies that are most essential for the development and future prosperity of the countries from which they come.
I have mentioned various points that I would like to have spoken on at greater length. However, if my hon. Friend would reply to them, I should be most grateful.

10.53

Mr. Ted Rowlands: I wish only to underline a few of the points that the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) has made forcefully. He began by drawing the House's attention to the objectives that were stated in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office memorandum. The first was to "win influential friends overseas". I must tell the Minister that the Government's actions in the early 1980s did anything but win friendship overseas. The impact of the nature of their actions, the lack of consultation and the alienation and resentment they incurred in communities that naturally had friendships with Britain and, normally, with our Government was drastic.
In the Select Committee, we had to spend some time in looking at the patchwork of support, outlined in annex A, which is now given to students and which is, in some respects, an admission of the disastrous impact of the bull-in-the-china-shop policy that was followed in the early 1980s. Since then, we have rightly spent a good deal of time repairing the damage created by those early absurdities and the failure to consult, or to achieve a sensible evolution of policy rather than its destruction. In terms of objective number one—"win influential friends overseas"—we have, I hope, learnt the lessons of the early 1980s. The patchwork of available schemes includes the fee support scheme—known in our parlance as the Pym scheme—a damage limitation exercise designed to repair the damage caused by the initial decisions.
My second point concerns the Government's relationship to Select Committee reports. I am a recent convert to Select Committees, having become a member of one after more than 20 years in the House. I made a deliberate choice to leave the Front Bench, on which I had spent the best part of my parliamentary career in either government or opposition, because it was the only way in which to go on to a Select Committee. Having done so, I feel that it is extremely important for Governments to accept that enormous effort and often unanimous recommendations must be taken seriously. They must not be brushed aside, ignored or—as in this case—not even answered properly. I hope that, if it does nothing else, the debate will underline again the demand from those who serve on Select Committees that Governments should care about how they and their recommendations are treated.
My third point is this. Although it was the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale who actually


asked the question, we all wanted to learn not only how we were making good the damage of the early 1980s but how we compared with France, the Federal Republic of Germany, Italy and others. The distinguished official appearing before us replied:
I fear we do not have to hand any up-to-date figures, and if you really would like those I think we would have to offer to do that afterwards.
That is in paragraph 36 of the report.
We emphasise that we wish to follow that up. Almost all the Committee's members looked rather surprised that no such comparisons and monitoring were taking place. Miss Pestell went on—rightly—to point out the difficulties of making such comparisons, but I think that it is widely recognised that we are involved in a competitive game. Like the right hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale, I believe that we should ensure that students from poor Botswana are given the best possible support, as well as those from Hong Kong and the developing nations in which our distinguished Chairman has a particular interest.
We must believe passionately in giving support to the poorest countries. Students from Botswana should feel that Britain is still a home to which they can come to obtain skills and further their education, and a country such as ours has an intrinsic moral duty and responsibility to help. I was astonished that we were not watching our competitors, and that the information requested, quite properly, by the Committee had not been provided. I hope when the Minister replies he will reaffirm the commitment to produce a further submission to the Select Committee, so that we can have some further knowledge of these comparisons.
I should like to make a personal point, which illustrates something else that emerged from the evidence. No one wants to make comparisons with the early 1980s, but it is valuable, I think, to note that different types of students are coming to this country seeking different types of courses at different levels of education, and we cannot go back to the situation as it was between 1978 and 1981.
I am rather glad that things are changing. I once had the dubious privilege of being an examiner for the Cambridge board and at Christmas time A-level papers used to arrive from deepest Malaysia and, unbelievably, from Nigeria in the midde of the civil war, when, as I used to read in The Sunday Times, there was genocide going on. There were students scribbling away in missionary schools in the heart of Nigeria answering four A-level questions on the British constitution and history such as "Discuss the future development of the English parish council". I am delighted that, gradually, the Malaysians and Nigerians are developing an examination system free from nonsense of that kind. One detects the evolution of education systems in Africa and Asia and the removal of the nonsenses that occurred, as when I used to examine young A-level students on the English local government system. I am glad in some ways that the nations concerned are freeing themselves from that sort of curious relationship.
When I was "Minister for decolonisation", as I used to call myself, I preached the concept of re-engagement of relationships in modern terms, and I think that within the whole area of education of overseas students we can re-engage in a very modern sense with a large number of students from a large number of countries in different parts of the world.

Mr. Peter Temple-Morris: I have great pleasure in following the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands). Such is the camaraderie of the Foreign Affairs Committee that I have to say that I agree with virtually every word he has said and certainly would not take him to task on anything.
Many figures have been bandied around tonight and, generally speaking, I have the feeling that we have lost out in terms of our potential in this field in recent years, and we are not attracting now those people that we could, and indeed should, have attracted. We are doing very well and all the figures commend themselves but, if one takes 1979 as a high water mark of successive Government's historical legacy, colonial legacy and everything else, it was an indiscriminate policy of subsidy, of benefits to every student, but there were many people who came here at that time who have subsequently gone elsewhere. Our eastern friends, as many hon. Members of the Committee know better than I, have gone to the United States; many middle easterners have gone to the United States; many Africans have gone to all sorts of odd places—if I may say so, respectfully—even to East Germany and the Soviet Union. That seems to me to mean that we have something to answer for, bearing in mind our potential.
I would like to say a few words, as have right hon. and hon. Friends, on the importance of this matter politically and economically. On the political front—and I say this after a lifetime of frequent contact with foreigners, to put it mildly—the country of education is usually the second country for life. That is an important fact that one must take hold of.
The other side of the coin is social obligation, a point made by the hon. Members for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney. I am pleased with the Government's southern Africa programme and may that continue. It is something that hon. Members on both sides of the House would support.
There are always two dimensions—the social and the political. Any Government must follow both sensibly. Let me give two examples, the second of which may be familiar to some hon. Members. My first example concerns developing countries. Temple-Morris's French is not very good. When he went to Algeria he was struggling. In Paris he understands better what comes back from his somewhat imperfect French. To cut the story short, it was a great relief, when the conversation turned to offshore gas, suddenly to find three, four or five young gentlemen who all came from Manchester—the polytechnic as well as the university, which has a bearing on the figures presented to the Select Committee—speaking with somewhat Lancastrian accents, or perhaps even worse, but something that I could understand better than the French. That will mean something to various colleagues of mine who have been to different parts of the world. Young men return to their own countries arid not only speak English and respond to things British but buy British equipment.
My second example is an extreme one in relation to the most developed countries. After a heavy day during the Select Committee's visit to Washington we had a mixed tea party with the Senate foreign relations committee. Out of some five senators who attended, no fewer than two were


Rhodes scholars. That was not in any small way why they took the trouble to attend. We do not want to miss both sides of the equation.
The policy of successive Governments up to 1979 was one, to use a disparaging term, of indiscriminate subsidy, or, to use a somewhat more encouraging term, of special terms for overseas students. At that time I said, and do so again, that I was unhappy with the decision that was taken. I lobbied Lord Pym during 1982–83 and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office scholarships and award scheme were welcome. The selective basis is almost universally accepted, but it is the amount of money being spent on that basis that is important. I often wish that the Foreign Office, for all its eloquence before the Select Committee and in my general contact with it, had a budget to match its aspirations.
It is the Overseas Development Administration's budget that is providing the funds. In 1988–89 there was £83 million for 13,500 students, dwarfing anything that the Foreign Office is doing on the more political front. At the moment the Foreign Office budget is £16 million direct, going up next year to £20 million. But most of that increase of £4 million will again be ODA, not Foreign Office money.
There is a mistake here. I do not deny that those in command are, through the most elegant creative accounting, doing a good job within their power and ability. But I somehow get the impression that they have not got their head; that they cannot quite get out of the system that which they should do and that which the issue commands. We still have not got away from the slightly doctrinaire syndromes of 1979 and thereafter, which we must do.
Being doctrinaire on the other side for a moment, I would commend private sector involvement. There is nothing new in this. In my university days, many of our old companies with middle east interests had schemes which were far more imaginative and productive than those that we have at present. I hope that we can involve industry. I hope that the Foreign Office will preserve its dominance and its influence in the overall system, but there is much work to be done. The Department of Trade and Industry is now entering the stream. It is now coming in with—I can never resist referring to this—its peculiarly vulgar writing paper that it has decided to take on, and it is regaling everyone with the fact that it is to introduce its own schemes. If it can do so, all well and good, but British industry must be made to see the possibilities, and, from odd bits of evidence that we had, it seems to be a slightly uphill struggle. I hope that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office can lead the DTI on this. When it comes to available money, the DTI's budget is far greater, even though at present its commitment is far smaller. I hope, nevertheless, that we can work together because there is much to be done, and our efforts in this direction will, in the end, prevent many people from going to America or elsewhere when they should be coming here.
As regards the future, the Foreign and Commonwealth budget—it always comes down to that—is very small. It must be fought for and, in my view, it is never fought for quite enough. Never has so little money been poured into the land of such great opportunity. That is something with which I dare say my hon. Friend the Parliamentary

Under-Secretary of State would thoroughly agree. So we must try to be behind him in his efforts, because I feel that the Department is trying its very best. I still think that what is at stake is comparatively unrecognised. We have enormous potential. Our country has much to give, and much more to give than at present it is permitted to give.
We must, therefore, have sufficient funding, and anything that can be done to that end I will certainly do.

Mr. Ian Taylor: Confining my remarks to just a few minutes makes me feel a little like people in Nigeria sitting examinations under the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) must have felt trying to work out how to answer a question on the British rate support grant in four minutes. It must have taxed their ingenuity. When I came to the Select Committee and looked at the complex list of Government support schemes for overseas students in the United Kingdom, the rate support grant seemed almost a doddle. The complexity of the various schemes seemed to test not only my colleagues and myself but also some of the officials who were endeavouring to explain them to us. That is why there were one or two difficulties about the answers to some of the questions that we put, but I am sure that all will be resolved in due course with supplementary memoranda.
One aspect to which I should like to draw attention today is grant transfer between the Overseas Development Administration and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and the various criteria listed. I have no time to go into detail, but on page 17 of the minutes of evidence dated 1 March 1989 this was raised in questions which I and my colleagues asked. The criteria are clear—that ODA money is still being disbursed under the FCO programme to developing countries, and there is no leakage. Nevertheless, the criteria are worth examining in detail. For the sake of brevity, however, I merely draw attention to the comments made by the officials and reported on page 17 of the report.
The other interesting aspect is that, although the number of overseas students in the United Kingdom receiving Government support in the year 1988–89 given in the evidence is roughly 22,700, the total number of overseas students receiving higher education in this country is about 57,000, a figure given in a written reply to me on 6 March. So there is a very large number of overseas students in this country—and I welcome this—who are not dependent on Government grants. I hope that the number obviously attracted directly by institutions of higher education in Britain will continue to grow.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) mentioned the political importance of encouraging students from countries with which we want to foster a long-term political relationship, and where for the first time we can determine the selection procedure for such students. This is particularly the case with various eastern European countries to which he referred. I entirely endorse his remarks. Given that we have stated that there are political objectives in the criteria that we use for FCO grants, we should use them in our long-term interests. I especially believe that eastern Europe, where there is an enormous thirst for British education, is vitally important.
The British Council is doing a first-class job in eastern Europe, which will improve now that it has been voted extra funds for that purpose, but although the British


Council is taking education to people in eastern Europe, some students must be brought to the higher centres of learning in Britain. I hope that the Government will consider increasing funds for that purpose. We should be making a long-term investment by bringing future leaders of other countries to this country, and the Foreign Office should recognise that financially more than it does at present.
I have tried to confine my remarks to the required time by not covering the many other matters to which I had hoped to refer.

Mr. Bowen Wells: I shall make four brief points in the time that remains.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor), I am very concerned about the transfers from the ODA budget to the FCO budget. I am particularly worried about the reason given by officials in evidence to the Committee—that the ODA could not select the candidates that it considered most appropriate to come to Britain to take up scholarships under its TCDC programme, and therefore it was transferring them to the FCO so that the FCO could select the right people for Britain to try to influence in terms of future relationships between Britain and other countries. Clearly that is a political, not a developmental, objective.
The evidence has shown that the Foreign Office and the ODA want to continue that practice, so there will be a serious reduction in the ODA budget. It seems to be quite wrong that the British administrators of the ODA's TCDC scheme are not influential in selecting the candidates to take up British scholarships. I ask the ODA to reconsider the position whereby British scholarships are awarded at local universities, thus depriving those who benefit from the scholarships of the experience of coming to Britain and benefiting from learning about its culture and its objectives, and making friendships which are likely to last a lifetime and influence their purchasing and other loyalties in future.
It is clear that we have a major task in offering scholarships to eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. We are not providing anything like sufficient money to promote scholarships from those countries to Britain, which I consider will play a crucial part in developing peaceful and productive relationships between Britain and the Soviet Union in the advantageous circumstances which are developing between our two countries.
I commend the DTI scheme, which should be got under way as quickly as possible and should concentrate on management, production and personnel management techniques which are lacking in most of the developing countries.
In transferring scholarships from the ODA to the FCO it is said that they are held in the poorest countries. When we asked in which countries they were held, the countries cited were Egypt, Brazil, China and Turkey. Although China is very poor, those are not countries we would normally think of as developing countries.
When we were able to offer scholarship places in our universities and technical colleges without asking for full-cost fees, we were influencing a much larger population of students in Commonwealth countries. We now offer cut-price fees to EEC students. I strongly believe that we should restore to the Commonwealth the privilege

of similarly benefiting from the EEC scheme, and that we should put the Commonwealth and the EEC on the same basis. We should certainly ensure that all our dependencies are on that basis. In that way, we shall be able to ensure the continuation of British influence and culture in many of the countries that we have traditionally supported.

Mr. John Bowis: I am moved to speak by the reminiscences of the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), when he recalled his student days spent with Dr. Banda and others. I recollect my own student days, when I shared a university with Mr. Tariq Ali—and also shared the occasional demonstration with him. Mr. Tariq Ali may have learnt something from those days—I know that I did. He could have bought the university, never mind needing a grant to attend it.
In the next room to mine at university there was a white South African, and two doors away there was a black Nigerian. That better sums up tonight's debate—the concept of people from two different parts of Africa bringing something to our country, and taking away something that—as I know from meeting them again—has lasted over the years. Most important of all, we learnt something from each other that might stand that continent in good stead in the longer term.
We have a good record, and we must build upon it. If there is any criticism of my hon. Friend it is that it is such a good story, but we want more of it. I hope that my few words serve to emphasise that message. It is right to target on student need rather than on just places, and to specify our aims in bringing overseas students to this country. They include winning friends and influencing people, helping developing countries, and assisting British trade. Another element, which has not been mentioned, is exporting English English. If we export English English as opposed to American English, or any other kind of English, that too will help our position in the world.

Mr. Foulkes: Only "English" English?

Mr. Bowis: I use the terra English English in the broadest sense, and I would include the best broad Scots, if that applies.
Perhaps my hon. Friend will bear in mind a possible university of the Commonwealth and what that could do for English and for our relationships with other countries. My message is that, while we should certainly invite students from the Commonwealth and from Anglophone countries, we should do more in terms of trade and of exporting the English language to other countries of the world, including Francophone and Hispanic countries.
We must consider also the lands of central and southern America, of Indo-China, and of the middle east. That is what Japan does. There are few countries where Japanese is spoken, but Japan still has a reputation around the world. Similarly, we should not confine our efforts only to the English-speaking world.
I reinforce the comments by my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) and the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) concerning southern Africa. The scheme that operates there, which I have seen in action, is excellent. There are about 170 students under the present scheme. One thinks of the 2 million people in Soweto, and of those


in the camps around Cape Town. There is an enormous need for our support and education. I hope that my hon. Friend will expand that scheme. If he sets out to do that, he will have the support of the whole House.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: Although the cultural, economic and educational benefits for our universities of accepting overseas students are well recognised, more must be done. Although there are now 48,000 students in our country compared with 38,000 in 1978, the United States with four times our population has 342,000 students, France, with about the same population has 133,000, and West Germany has 72,000. If we are to double the proportion of 18-year-olds in higher education in the next 10 years, the proportion overseas should also be doubled.
Although the 1979 exercise was more rushed than one would have liked, its implications were good to the extent that it rationalised higher education students. The figures show that between 1978 and 1985 the number of non-advanced students undertaking GCSE, CSE and FCE studies dropped from 23,000 to 5,000. At least that rationalisation has forced greater bilateral agreements between countries such as the United Kingdom and Malaysia and China. It is interesting to note that a consortium of northern universities and polytechnics already has a significant bilateral programme with Malaysia, especially for law students. The same applies to 60 universities and polytechnics which, backed by British Petroleum, Glaxo, ICI and Shell, are developing with Taiwan the equivalent of a consular education counselling service in Taipei.
The marketing of our university student places abroad must be far more professional than at present, and the university mission services overseas must be uprated, in conjunction with our educational institutions and universities. We must also target our aid in relation to university students abroad much more accurately. We tend to look towards the Commonwealth countries on the Indian subcontinent and in Africa, but only 1·5 per cent. of overseas students coming to this country are from the burgeoning continent of south America, with its economic and political opportunities. Indeed, the number of students from Venezuela and Brazil decreased significantly between 1979 and 1985. Our universities must adopt far more modular higher education courses so that students from abroad can jump on and jump off, although to be fair that line is already taken for retraining mature students.
We should also use far more private finance. It is disappointing that there are only 17 joint initiatives with the private sector. The Department of Trade and Industry's trade-related scholarships need to be upgraded. It is disappointing that there are only 83 of them at present. It is interesting to note that the Overseas Students Trust wanted an increase of £200,000 per year to £10 million per year. There is also far more to be done on the tripartite schemes that were mentioned in the evidence to the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office is engaged in schemes, including those involving ICI at Oxford university and BICC with the Cranfield institute of technology. If more can be done

in that way, the £120 million of public funds that are used to attract overseas students to this country can be trebled or even quadrupled by private sector funds from industry.

Mr. Eggar: With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, could I say first to hon. Members and to members of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs that no discourtesy was intended to the Committee in omitting to pick up points made by the Select Committee. I assure the Committee that we shall watch this matter very carefully in future. I take the points made in particular by my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling).
The evidence for our oversight is that we believe we have a very good story to tell in relation to overseas students. We had no reason, and certainly no intention or wish, to disguise from the Committee what we were doing. The general support from members of the Committee and from hon. Members is evidence of their recognition of what we have been doing in the past three years.
I shall deal rapidly with as many questions as possible that have been raised during this brief debate. I undertake to reply in writing to my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell), the Chairman of the Select Committee, with regard to the points with which I shall not be able to deal during my remarks.
My hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor) remarked on the complexity of the schemes. I agree that they are complex. We have considered ways to simplify them and have concluded that various schemes used subtly together can meet most requirements in different countries. We want to concentrate on increased targeting, using our existing schemes. Perhaps in the future we shall narrow the number of schemes but we want to continue as we are for the present.
Several hon. Members spoke about the need to expand in eastern Europe. In this financial year, ending in April, we will have spent £167,000 in scholarship schemes in eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. Next year we intend to spend £702,000. In other words, the amount is increasing rapidly and we intend to continue that trend.
Hon. Members commented on the transfer of ODA money to the diplomatic wing for use through the FCO scholarships and awards scheme. This is a good example of our deliberately selecting the most effective way of delivering scholarships to a number of aid recipient countries. The awards will be targeted on a number of countries of importance to Britain and on candidates of high quality who can and will make a real contribution in important areas of their own countries' development.
The ODA money—the transferred money—will be disbursed according to the provisions of the Overseas Development and Co-operation Act 1980. This transfer does not mean a reduction in ODA programmes. On the contrary, the ODA has provided funds to the diplomatic wing in addition to existing money that is being spent by the ODA. In other words, it is a use of extra money that the ODA has transferred to the diplomatic wing.
The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) spoke of the drop in the number of students at further education colleges. His hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) dealt effectively with that point. In most developing countries there has been a rapid increase in the


number of further education courses available, and it must be right that those courses should be followed in the developing countries. Students are then available to come and study at university or higher education level in the United Kingdom.
The reason for the delay in holding another round table was that there were comments about the structure of the round table following its last meeting. Consultations are going on with the NGOs and others to try to find a more satisfactory framework that would be more acceptable and productive from everybody's point of view.
The hon. Members for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley and for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) commented on the overseas research students award scheme and questioned whether that might be extended to polytechnics. That is under review now and we must await the outcome of that review.
A number of hon. Members spoke about the EPS and ECS recruitment schemes. I am told that the Department of Education and Science believes that decisions on recruitment policies should be left to institutions. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office provided a small amount of pump priming money to get those recruitment schemes off the ground, in conjunction with the British Council.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) about the need for universities to improve their marketing techniques for overseas students. The comparison between the techniques used by American and British universities does not redound to the credit of our universities.
The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley spoke about the fund for international student co-operation, of which, I gather, he is an ex-employee. I wish to place on record our thanks to FISC and its trustees for the work that they have done over the years. We have completed a detailed review of FISC and we believe that there is no need for that body to continue its work, and we wish to redeploy the funds directly for other assistance in the student world. The grant will, therefore, end in 1989.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House commented on the fee support schemes. We believe that those schemes have fulfilled their purpose—

It being two hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put, pursuant to the Order [3 March].

Croft House, Holywood, County Down

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Sackville.]

Mr. James Kilfedder: I am extremely pleased to have this opportunity to raise a matter of immense importance to my constituents. It is not just a local issue but a wider question involving the morality of a Government Department and the Eastern health and social services board in making a decision that runs counter to a decision and a promise of two years ago.
Two years ago the Eastern health and social services board announced that it intended to close Croft House, a home for the elderly. That decision came as a shock to my constituents and, indeed, to myself. Croft House has been a home for senior citizens for the past 38 years. A homely atmosphere and caring attention have been provided by dedicated staff. Most of the residents orginally lived in the Holywood area, where their relatives still live. As the residents are familiar with the environment, the move to a residential home was not as dramatic as it might have been had they been taken away from churches, relatives and friends who had given their lives a considerable degree of warmth.
It was not surprising, therefore, that a decision, in 1987, to close Croft House was challenged by the people of Holywood and by their elected representatives, including myself as the Member of Parliament. At that time there was no talk of a home for the elderly mentally infirm being built in Holywood or, indeed. anywhere else in North Down or Ards. Croft House was being closed because a report said that it would be too costly to make it satisfy all economic and technical requirements and that, consequently, it was too costly to run.
In its strategic plan for the period 1987–92 the board confirmed the need for residential accommodation for the elderly in the North Down and Ards areas. Protest meetings were held at that time, and eventually the board decided to replace Croft House with new purpose-built premises to provide 45 beds, on a site attached to Marmion children's home, which is in Church road, Holywood. This decision was welcomed by the people of the area, by those connected with the home, and by all who had the elderly people's welfare at heart. It was thought that it would bring the elderly people and the children from Marmion together in a very happy relationship and that that would make the elderly people feel part of the local community.
At a meeting of the Eastern health board on 26 March 1987 it was explained—I quote from the minutes—
that … it had been possible to obtain a commitment from the Department of Health and Social Services to use the proceeds of this sale of Croft House together with an advance from the Department to allow a replacement 45 bed home for the elderly in the grounds of Marmion Children's Home to commence as soon as possible.
It was resolved
to proceed with action to replace Croft House as soon as possible.
Work on the site commenced in November last year and progressed at a reasonable rate for two months, during which time the residents of Croft House, who knew that their home was to be closed in due course, came along to see the development of what they thought would be their new home, not far away.
But suddenly everything changed. In private, a proposal was put forward by officials of the board
to redesign the elderly persons' home".
Those words are bureaucratic shorthand for "demolish what has been built and start again". On 26 January of this year the board agreed that the home "be so redesigned". That was to ensure that the new facility could cater for the needs of the mentally frail elderly. In other words, the solemn undertaking that had been given by the board two years ago to the people of Holywood, to the residents of Croft House, to the clergy in the area and to the public representative was broken by the board.
Suddenly, with only five days' notice, the board reversed the decision. It gave the people five days to make representations. Of course, privately officials gave instructions to the contractor to demolish what had already been built. That was before the board formally made the decision to abandon the replacement home for Croft House. Demolition was quick and sudden. The chairman of the board admitted that the community was taken by surprise. As an excuse for the quick action—the board having waited two long years—the chairman said that the matter required urgent resolution. Yet the director of social services admitted at a meeting which I attended that the issue had been considered by officials for a considerable time.
Despite the extensive and secret consideration by officials of the board, the public was not consulted and no attempt was made to postpone the building work even though for some time the officials knew that they might put forward a recommendation to the board to abandon the project and, better still, to reach a decision before the erection of the building had begun. I should have thought that there was a duty on public officials to be careful about public money.

Mr. Roy Beggs: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the action that took place illustrates clearly just how little influence the elected representatives have when serving on boards in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Kilfedder: It proves what I have said all along, that it is high time the Government abolished the board and gave democracy back to the people of Northern Ireland so that we might get rid of the colonial type of Government which we have, with Ministers going over from England and the people having no say. They are invited sometimes to put their views, but when it comes to the bit, arrogance overrules local wishes. I have no objection to arrogance if it is matched with intellect and compassion, but sadly that is not so.
The present case is a perfect example. The officials of the board waited until the foundation of the building had been laid and the walls erected. How much money has been spent needlessly on design and construction costs? It is impossible to discover the amount from the board. My estimate—it is a conservative estimate if I dare use the word "conservative" in that context—is that as a result of its actions the board has cost the taxpayer in excess of £160,000. The board must be held to account for the money that has been thrown away.
I have spoken to the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee about the shameful waste of taxpayers' money, because it is the people who are paying. The Chairman of

the PAC has promised to give the matter his attention when I submit the papers to him. I propose to give a copy of the Official Report of the debate to him in due course.
The board has the temerity to castigate those who criticise its decision by saying:
To proceed with the original design and build an elderly persons' home which is not needed would be a waste of public money.
If it is not needed, I would have thought that the officials would have known that before they started to erect the building, before the contract was handed out, and indeed before they commissioned the architect to design the building. All that money has been lost for ever. However, the officials appear to set themselves up as the guardians of the public purse on the basis of their experience and their having poured £460,000 of the taxpayers' money down the drain. The board states emphatically that the elderly persons' home is not needed, despite the fact that it is to replace Croft House, which is and has always been full, and despite the fact that it was the Eastern health board on 26 March 1987 that made the decision to provide the replacement building.
The board tries to put a brave face on its inconsistency and muddled thinking by stating that there is a need for a home for the elderly mentally infirm. If that be so, the need has not suddenly become manifest to the board. Officials must have been aware for some time of the requirement for accommodation for the elderly who suffer from dementia. Indeed, the board states that there are 80 mentally frail elderly people in the North Down area. I do not doubt that there are many who need such treatment. Some may now go down to Downshire, which is far away from their relatives. However, If that is so, why was the decision not made last year, the year before or the year before that to provide a home for the elderly mentally infirm?
That is not something new. The matter has been mentioned occasionally in the House, and I should have thought that the officials were aware long ago that a home was needed. When pressed on the issue, the board had to admit that, although it says that there are about 80 mentally frail individuals in the North Down area, it could identify only seven people who were mentally infirm in the Holywood area. However, even that number is in doubt and is challenged.
I make it clear that I believe that we need a home for the elderly mentally infirm. I am in favour of proper provision for the elderly who are mentally frail, but a home should be built between the two areas of heavy population, Bangor and Newtownards, so that it is accessible to relatives from both areas. I ask the Minister to respond to the plea from the people of North Down. The Government should agree to pay for the erection of a home that would serve patients from a wide area—perhaps North Down, Ards, Castlereagh and even further afield.
What has happened to the money that was raised from the sale of Cultra House, Holywood that was used for the elderly mentally infirm and was originally a gift from a private benefactor? I understand that that house was sold for about £800,000. Have the Government pocketed that money? Has the board put that money to other uses? It should have been kept for the building of a home for the elderly mentally infirm. Is it being used for that purpose?
The chairman of the Eastern health board stated that the board's commitment to the residents of Croft House will not be prejudiced by this new decision. What does that mean? If it means the same as the board's commitment to


build a replacement home for Croft House, it is worthless. What is more, it is a callous and cruel way to treat the elderly in Croft House.
It is well that the public in Northern Ireland—even though they may have no relatives in Croft House and may not live anywhere near Holywood or North Down—should be made aware of the indifferent and appalling attitude of the board in this matter. The board has offered to accommodate the present residents of Croft House in the new building that has been redesigned for the mentally infirm. If it can agree to do this, that effectively rebuts every argument it put forward about the urgent need for a home for many mentally infirm in Holywood. If the board accommodates the residents in Croft House, there will be only five places left for new residents. At the moment, Croft House provides accommodation for 25 residents and the replacement home was to provide 45 beds—the board's estimate of need for the area. The new premises for the elderly mentally infirm will provide 30 places.
What will happen to the hapless residents of Croft House? If the Eastern health board has its way, they will be installed in the new building, together with people who are suffering from dementia. It is shocking that the board should contemplate such a thing. In its annual report of 1987–88 it said:
An EMI home caters for demented, elderly people whose confusion makes them unsuitable for ordinary residential care. It only takes one or two to become severely disturbed for the whole house to be disrupted.
Such a situation would be alarming for ordinary, elderly residents who are alert and lively. They would be distressed and upset if a severe disturbance, perhaps even an assault—I have heard about many in such homes—were to take place. That would be a recipe for the mental and physical deterioration and collapse of the residents.
In addition, the residents of Croft House would lose their freedom. They would all be locked up—the ordinary, elderly people as well as those suffering from dementia. What is coldly and cruelly called the "race track" would be provided for the inmates so that they could endlessly walk round it—but out they will not get. The ordinary elderly people in Croft House will not be able to get out without special permission.
I am trying to calculate when I began so that I can allow the Minister enough time.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): The hon. Gentleman has been speaking for 17 minutes.

Mr. Kilfedder: I am much obliged, Madam Deputy Speaker. That means that I have another three minutes, because I believe that the Minister wanted 10 minutes.
Another excuse put forward by the board for abandoning its pledge to provide a replacement home for Croft House is the reduction in the waiting list for Croft House from 40 to 20. Private profit-making homes for the elderly are mushrooming all over North Down, and elsewhere in the Province; all their beds are filled, and more private residential homes are being built for profit.
If people are building such places, they must have calculated that there are plenty of people to fill the beds. In the circumstances, it would be foolish for the board to believe that fewer people want to reside in one of its homes for the elderly—I do not for one moment accept that it believes that. In fact, it will be a considerable time before those 20 on the waiting list are accommodated in Croft House.
I do not have time to go through all the other facts that I have before me. I shall precis them by saying that the population of North Down and the number of elderly people continue to grow. The board admits that the number of elderly people will increase by 4,500 by 1996 and those over 75 will increase by 8,500. It admits that. there is a need for places for the elderly. The state should. not opt out of providing places for the elderly in residential homes.
If the Government were to increase the old-age pension so that people could live in dignity in their own homes, they might be able to manage. However, each individual needs at least £5 per week more if he or she is to meet the increased cost of living. If the Government did not cut back on the money provided for the board to enable home helps to visit the elderly, perhaps more of them could stay in their own homes. I know of instances of elderly people being provided with help for half an hour a week. That is an insult. It enables the Government to say that they provide home help, but not much can be done in half an hour.
I make a final appeal to the Government to respect the wishes of the people of North Down and to examine the situation there. The solemn promise that was made should be honoured.
In the preparation of the new premises, the contractor demolished mature trees, and pulled out hedges to provide an alternative opening that was wholly unnecessary. More work and expense was thus entailed in providing the change of entrance. The builders had to re-wire and re-route electric cable for the road lights and erect a new electric light pole. The electricity supply to private dwellings facing the development had to be re-wired. All this additional trouble and cost was required to provide an opening to a new building that was unnecessary.
I ask the Government to hold the board to account and to ensure that its promise is honoured. If that does not happen, I hope that the Public Accounts Committee will hold them all responsible.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Richard Needham): The hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder) has not left me long to reply after his eloquent speech of 23 minutes. He was wide in his condemnation of the Eastern health and social services board on which there are 34 members and which therefore includes a wide spread of professional, political and geographical interests. If the hon. Gentleman and his colleague the hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) feel that democracy is not working as well as they would wish in the boards of Northern Ireland, perhaps the first thing they should do is encourage their friends to take their places again on the boards and stop their ludicrous boycott—

Mr. Kilfedder: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Needham: I shall not give way. The hon. Gentleman spoke for 23 minutes.
If the hon. Gentleman wants to make changes, he should do something about that, as it is in his power to do so. He is well aware that since the decision to build a replacement for Croft House in 1987 a great deal has


changed. He is also aware of the rapid expansion of special housing schemes and the increase in private residential homes for the elderly in his constituency.
Since March 1987, a new sheltered housing scheme providing places for 37 dependent elderly people, with a resident warden, has been completed. Two further schemes providing an additional 160 places, supervised by three resident wardens, are also at an advanced stage. In addition, the Housing Executive has carried out major adaptations to 75 homes of disabled elderly tenants in North Down and Ards. Further major adaptations to the homes of another 16 disabled elderly residents are currently under way.
Accommodation in residential homes has also increased. In March 1987, the date of the replacement decision—perhaps the hon. Gentleman will stop shuffling his papers and listen—there were 17 statutory, voluntary and private residential homes for the elderly in North Down and Ards, providing a total of 447 places. Since then, 10 further private homes have been set up, providing a further 138 places. That is the clearest possible evidence of the Government's determination to ensure that there is proper co-operation between the public and private sectors and that old people can enjoy the widest possible choice.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the present position of the people in Croft House and commented that in 1987 the proposal was for 45 new places. Only 18 elderly persons in the area are currently assessed as needing admission to long-term residential care, and only two of those are down for Croft House. I am told that in those cases application has been made only within the past three weeks, so the evidence clearly shows that there was and is a need for the board to look carefully at the need for this home.
There is an acute need to help the elderly mentally frail and it was monstrous for the hon. Genteman to suggest that elderly people currently in Croft House would be pushed together with the elderly mentally frail. There has never been such a suggestion. The hon. Gentleman is well aware that everybody currently in Croft House will be looked after and consulted individually on the future position.
There are, at present, 60 mentally frail, elderly people living in the community and a further 30 in psychogeriatric hospital care who could benefit from care in a home designed to meet their needs, which is what Croft House will become. Such a facility does not currently exist in the Ards area and I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should seek to make the suggestions that he did. He should reflect on what he said about the needs of elderly, mentally infirm people in his area.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the board made a decision in 1987 and, rightly, reassessed that decision at the end of 1988. I am sure that when the hon. Gentleman puts his points to the Select Committee on Public Accounts it will wisely and sensibly come to the conclusion that it made more sense to spend £63,000—not £163,000 as the hon. Gentleman said, but he is never given to exaggeration when he does not need to be—when the cost of such a home would be £1·3 million. The need for places for the class of people to whom he referred is down to two, whereas the requirement for places for the elderly mentally infirm is 60. The board was right to make its decision. I agree with the hon. Gentleman in only one sense—that the board would have been wiser to make its decision before it let the contract and before the builder was on site.
I can understand the concern and the worry that the situation caused to residents of Croft House. It is crucial that all the residents there are carefully counselled and that their needs are individually looked after to ensure that they are properly cared for wherever they may go. As I said to the hon. Gentleman, those decisions will be taken by the board. Looking at the provision currently becoming available in the hon. Gentleman's area, I have no doubt that the residents will be found happy alternatives.
The Government are determined to ensure that elderly people who need to be in residential accommodation are looked after properly and that their condition is monitored properly. That is exactly what has happened in the hon. Gentleman's constituency and it will continue to happen while the Government are in control in Northern Ireland. We are determined to ensure that the needs of the elderly people of Northern Ireland are looked after sensitively and carefully.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at two minutes past Twelve o'clock.